The ruling by the appeals court shouldn't be read as political since it is based on the Constitution as the judges see it. But it does have political ramifacations/aspects.
Only when you have a liberal majority could it be possible to go forward with something like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Even then, political wrangling, dealmaking, etc. will lessen the ability of the agency to do whatever it would do without political constraint.
There are good arguments out there for not letting bureaucracies become the courts. But the courts cannot do what the bureaucracies do; and, in fact, the relationship between the courts and bureaucracy is one where neither operates independently from the other. The bureaucracies may interpret the law to some extent, but they are still subject to legal action. The courts rely on the evidence and reasoning gathered by the bureacracies as part of the considerations in any ruling.
The outcome of the 2016 elections in respect to not only the presidency but control of the houses of Congress will determine the fate of the CFPB. If under a Republican president no doubt the demise of the bureau will be effectuated somehow. But whatever happens, giving the President power to fire the head of the CFPB would mean that the actions of the agency are subject to political considerations. The point of independence of the agency is that it avoids these kinds of political difficulties and can look at things objectively.
By Kate Gibson MoneyWatch October 11, 2016, 11:56 AM
Court: structure of consumer watchdog agency unconstitutional
Last Updated Oct 11, 2016 3:36 PM EDT
The bureau is funded through the Federal Reserve, a process intended to allow it to operation without concern about politics. That independence has been an area of contention, most particularly for Republicans. The House Financial Services Committee in 2013 took issue with the lack of congressional oversight on the CFPB’s budget. The panel in April approved proposals to give Congress authority over the bureau’s budget.