If memory serves, McKenna was of the belief that the Medicaid portion - states get all funding yanked if they don't expand Medicaid per the ACA - was unconstitutional.

The Court agreed with that, 7-2.

So...while I hate to defend McKenna, on this issue, he actually kind of won, in an expensive, asinine, roundabout way.
Goldy, the supremes ruled that the govt. cannot use withholding medicare funds to the states as a leverage for them increasing their coverage - so no, the entirity of the bill is not upheld.
Actually, this is a victory for those moderates among us who like McKenna but also liked the health care law. So now it's behind us, McKenna doesn't need to get sucked into the debate on it.

So what's Inslee running on? Oh that's right, 'Green' jobs or something.
@2: The Medicaid expansion remains in place. In fact, a state's participation in Medicaid has always been voluntary, and not all states chose to participate at the outset. But all eventually did, just like all will eventually choose to participate int he expansion, as otherwise they would be subsidizing Medicaid expansion elsewhere while not providing it to their own citizens.

From McKenna's perspective, representing a state that will surely participate in the Medicaid expansion (barring his own veto) with or without prospective penalties for not participating, this one technical SCOTUS caveat has zero impact on the people McKenna claims to represent.
@4 - I think more importantly, is that it is such an in the weeds part of the opinion, that it's not really anything McKenna can hang his hat on, or anything that he can be effectively attacked over. It's a lot easier to point out that he joined in the overall lawsuit, and didn't file his own briefing as to the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion itself.

That's the practical bit of the opinion.

But this is Slog. And arguing for no particular reason is a part of it.
I was an Assistant AG when Slade Gorton and Ken Eikenberry were Attorneys General. They were both republicans, and Ken was a very conservative one. Yet both men made a point of refusing to be partisan in their work. I am very liberal politically, yet was a pleasure to serve the state under them (and under Ms. Gregoire.)

McKenna, on the other hand, is a partisan hack. I left the office before he was elected, but he embarrasses me even though I am no longer there (and two states away.) It is a damned shame that he has politicized one of offices in state government that should be above that fray.
McKenna is bad for Washington. Period. He's proved he sides with the extreme right wing and cannot be trusted to protect the interests of our people.
Hey Rob!!

All that taxpayer money you spent on your crappy partisan crusade?

I want all that back.

Hear that giant sucking sound? McKenna's campaign polling numbers.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.