Trump just announced he won’t repeal Obamacare, but will only amend it.
It is a bit more complicated than that- at the moment Trump doesn't have a plan, and what plan happens is done by congress with Presidential signify.
It is a bit more complicated than that- at the moment Trump doesn’t have a plan, and what plan happens is done by congress with Presidential signify.
To be fair, he did promise to immediately repeal it. Which would be bizarrely stupid, but there you go.
I can think we can safely assume that Republicans in Congress always knew he was bullshitting about many of his promises: there won't be a wall or a special prosecutor for Hillary. The swing voters have been pocketed, the win delivered, and he won't be running in 2020, so it doesn't matter.
The Republicans' goal now has little to do with Trojan Trump: it's as many gains as possible for Pence and the general conservative agenda. Ideally for them, they would lock in the changes (e.g Supreme Court) and then when popular anger is directed at Trump, get Pence or other smoother candidate for next time.
I’m probably optimistic as a learned servival device, so this, is the sand I am currently hiding my head.
I could, in theory, see Trump picking a fight with Congress, claiming that the Washington Elite are stopping him from implementing his awesome plans. Because his time is Republicans (if somewhat fringe) I don't know if that will actually happen.
But, tactically, it would give Trump someone to blame for things not being awesome, and we know some of the congressional Republicans are already on his enemies list.
Trying not to think about the Supreme Court appointments. The case that made same-sex marriage legal across the US was a 5-4 decision. Replacing Scalia with another hard liner is a given, but if two more of the elderly liberal-leaning judges are succeeded by conservative appointees under Trump.. that would make the Court a conservative, regressive institution for decades. Hard to imagine any more leaps forward in such an environment.
Replacing Scalia with another hard liner is a given, but if two more of the elderly liberal-leaning judges are succeeded by conservative appointees under Trump.. that would make the Court a conservative, regressive institution for decades.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I still really struggle to get my head around how much politics and the political system seems intertwined with expected normality of wider government in the USA, right from levels as low as arranging how elections and voting works, and all the way up to the top levels of appointments in the courts.
I mean in the sense of how it's standard, sometimes effectively required, for people to register a political allegiance. That allegiance seems to follow people around in media and in future appointments as if everything about that person, and everything they do and why, is somehow tied to political ideology... and that the declared allegiance is at least as an appropriate way of judging them as their actual actions.
Would it be acceptable in any other modern democracy if top level judges were appointed not specifically on their qualifications and experience, but on a political leader's assessment of the appointee's consistency with that leaders' ideology?
Maybe that stuff happens in New Zealand and we just don't talk about it so openly, but I think what I find least comforting with seeing the USA is not that it's talked about so openly as that it's treated as completely normal and acceptable. What's the argument for that being a good way for things to work?