Opponents of the decision by Maine’s new attorney general to join the national suit against Obamacare have not offered any convincing arguments to counter his decision.

The new federal health care law has come under substantive criticism, and considering the highly partisan circumstances of its adoption, it is perfectly appropriate that it now should face this sort of challenge. The law contains many vague, costly and questionable provisions that deserve the strictest scrutiny.

In addition, there’s been a significant change in Augusta, and the people running things now have different views on many issues than the former leaders did.

The takeover by Republicans of the Blaine House and both House and Senate chambers meant that not only did a new philosophy of government take control in those places, but that the state’s constitutional offices — attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer — were chosen by GOP lawmakers, not Democratic ones.

Attorney General William Schneider, a former legislator and assistant attorney general who has also served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maine, says he is “determined” to join a suit brought by 20 other states to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act declared unconstitutional.

He not only has the right to do that, he has an obligation to do it, if it is his sincere legal conclusion that the suit is correct on its merits and the state will benefit if it is successful.

The move is also supported by Gov. LePage as reflecting his position on the appropriate role of government.

Thus, it makes a tone-setting political statement as well as a legal one.

The argument that such a move would cost the state a substantial amount of money overlooks the point that if a flawed national policy is imposed on Maine people, it would certainly cost them far more in unanticipated expenses.

That some people think the law is constitutional is also beside the point. They are not in a position to make the decision about joining the suit, and their opinion has not been adjudicated in court and thus could be in error.

This newspaper has criticized the GOP majority in the U.S. House for taking up a bill designed to repeal the health care law, even though we believe the law is seriously flawed.

The House’s repeal effort, unfortunately, is a waste of time and congressional energy because the Democrat-controlled Senate will never go along with it — and even if the Senate were to pass it, the president would veto it.

The suit, on the other hand, has so far resulted in mixed verdicts, including a finding that its individual mandate is unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in Virginia.

Those decisions guarantee the issue will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, placing the constitutional question in the proper venue for its ultimate resolution.

Maine’s support for the suit will not likely be decisive, but the state’s chief legal officer has decided it is the legally appropriate thing to do and his action is in accord with the majority political viewpoint in Augusta.

Since such a suit offers the best chance to overturn the law and revisit the health care issue in its entirety, joining the suit is worthwhile.

The situation might be different if congressional Democrats and President Obama were willing to discuss the kinds of changes that would make the new plan reflect genuine compromise and beneficial reforms.

However, both the history of how the present act was adopted and hardened attitudes in Congress appear to make a real attempt at bipartisan and substantial change highly problematic at best.

Thus, the nation needs to start over. This suit offers the best opportunity to do that, and deserves all the backing it can get– including ours.