I spoke to Haley Barbour today, and now I have a civics question

[DeltaLitProf]

He was on a Right-wing talk radio show bloviating about his intent to sue the Federal government over the mandates in health care reform even if our Attorney General and Democrat Jim Hood does not.

I told him that joining the other 13 states to sue was a redundancy. I told him that spending money on the suit during a time of brutal budget cutting just to burnish his presidential aspirations would look very bad. I finally said that since the Supreme Court reviews all law for Constitutionality anyway, the lawsuits didn't make any sense.

He responded that the suit wouldn't cost much. He also said the Supreme Court cannot review the constitutionality of a law until it hears a lawsuit.

I am no lawyer. Barbour is. But he's also a Republican and a repeated, enthusiastic liar.

So is Barbour right? Does the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of laws without hearing a related case? Or does it have to wait until a suit is filed?

[WCGreen]

The Supreme Court does not rule on any question until a

Judgment or Ruling from a lower court is presented.

[marybourg]

1. Barbour is right. But only about the Supreme Court not reviewing

the constitutionality of a law until a case is presented. Other than that he's just plain right-wing.

[ashling]

2. It has to wait until a case is presented to it

In most cases that means filing and trying in District Court/Appeal to Circuit/then to SCOTUS

However, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some cases

[laughingliberal]

3. I do not believe SCOTUS does rule on the constitutionality of a law without a related case before

them, no.

[Gravel Democrat]

4. Nancy Pelosi says it's not even a serious question

"When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--...--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

----------snip-------
"Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
----------snip-----------------

"Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce..."
----------snip-----------

Audio/Vid at link http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

The Commerce Clause Claws?

[Sherman A1]

5. SCOTUS may not review the law prior to a case being presented

or it may. That is not the point here. What is the point is the waste of your tax dollars to join the suit, which will flow through the court system at whatever pace it does and MS need not join (or contribute to it's funding), but will enjoy (or not) the benefits of the decision, basically comes down to letting the other guys pay for it and enjoying the fruits of their labor. He is grandstanding by joining the suit.

[Lint Head]

6. Haley Barbour is not only wrong it is wrong that he exists.

[KharmaTrain]

7. No It Won't Cost Much...

...cause a suit will get tossed. Of course the filing fee is small, but the billable hours is another story...and trust me, there are hack GOOP lawyers out there who would love to soak the party for lots of money while having them chase this dead-letter through the court systems.

If the GOOPers are so outraged and feel this is such a violation of the Constitution, they can bring a civil suit, raise the money and let the lawyers go crazy on 'em. But why do that when you have hacks like Barber and other rushpublican Governors and States Attorneys who see playing the base for money and votes by waving this red hearing in their faces.

Sad thing is these shitstains know they're in safe red states and the voters won't hold them accountable.

[WilliamPitt]

8. There must be a case before the bar.