Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Mitch McConnell shouts from the sidelines

By Suzy Khimm

Attempting to make good on the GOP's threat to dismantle health-care reform, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is planning to file a "friend of the court" brief in support of a multi-state lawsuit against the law. Politico has a copy of the amicus curiae brief, which pretty much reiterates the argument at the heart of state-led suits: McConnell says that the individual mandate to purchase insurance would be an unconstitutional extension of federal authority under the commerce clause.

But, McConnell continues, there will be far more frightening outcomes if the law is allowed to stand. "If the individual mandate is deemed constitutional, there will no longer be any limit on Congress's power to regulate its citizens under the Commerce Clause. Congress's specific power under that Clause will be transformed into a general police power, all but eliminating the distinction between federal and state regulatory authority in our federal union," McConnell wrote Tuesday in a letter (PDF link) introducing his amicus brief. So, in essence, health-care reform will lead the country down a slippery slope towards a nightmarish regime controlled by the federal government.

Such a proclamation could certainly fire up the conservative activists who are already convinced that health reform has put America on the march toward socialism, if not a complete totalitarian state. But McConnell's brief is also the perfect example of how limited the GOP's reach will be in terms of affecting substantive change to health care in the next Congress. As a non-binding document, the amicus brief is essentially a symbolic and ideological gesture that McConnell is encouraging his fellow senators to sign onto. Perhaps it could help encourage courts to take up the lawsuits more rapidly — the Supreme Court has already href="">declined to hear the first challenge to the law until lower courts rule, as is standard practice. But if there are any sweeping changes to health reform in the near future, it's likely to come from the courts, not Congressional Republicans, who will have a tough time repealing the law. McConnell's latest statement, like most amicus briefs, is just another shout from the sidelines.

Suzy Khimm is a reporter in the Washington bureau of Mother Jones. Read more of her work here, and follow her on Twitter.

By Suzy Khimm  | November 10, 2010; 11:53 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On being liberal
Next: Do voters like obese candidates?


You know who else agrees that the mandate is one of the worst policies in US history? All sensible liberals, including a guy named Barack Obama:

Posted by: michaelh81 | November 10, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

So Mitch McConnell agrees that his heart surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital was Socialism, right? And that his cadillac health care benefits are socialism, right also? one can have any health care, right? Except for hypocritical repubicans who will use it all they want, right?

Posted by: fmamstyle | November 10, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't the mandate originally a Republican idea?

I have a hard time seeing how this can be a "slippery slope" argument, particularly since the Fed's have the military strength to impose whatever they want anyways, regardless of who is in power.

Posted by: mikem1 | November 10, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The dreaded "Obamacare" has in it a TAX CREDIT for small businesses with less than 50 employees of 35% to the employer for the portion the employer pays of the employee premium. Already the premium paid by employers is tax deductible as a payroll expense. The Obamacare tax credit is in addition to that. McConnell's ilk would repeal. So if the Bush Tax cuts not being extended make a huge tax increase will not Obamacare's repeal not make a huge tax increase for small businesses? Think about it Mitch, but better, where the heck are the DEFENDERS of Obamacare with THIS arguement????

Posted by: EPluribusUnum3 | November 11, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company