It’s only March, but I think the phrase of the year has already been coined. 
Oxford and Merriam-Webster have their Word of the Year, and Politifact has its Lie of the Year. As far as I know, “phrase of the year” isn’t really a thing. But I’m making it one now and awarding it to Lawfare blog’s Benjamin Wittes for this: “malevolence tempered by incompetence.”
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
Wait, you’re in the right place! 
If you’re looking for The Faithless Elector, this is it. Or . . . this was it. Welcome to the site revamp! (And if you just found the blog today, well then, just welcome!). The new blog name – as you can see – is DC Deciphered. I’ll still be covering the same general topics as before, only under a pithier title.
Some minor content changes: my goal is to try to write some (relatively) shorter posts, more quick reads for you guys. That’s the goal anyway – brevity is not exactly my strong suit. There will still probably be at least one longer post each week, explaining something – whether it’s a policy issue, a legislative process, a legal case – in more detail. I will still do a weekly news roundup (“What Did I Miss?”) on Fridays, but I’m thinking about maybe adding one mid-week as well. Any other (gentle) suggestions for changes or new content ideas are welcome. That’s about it, as far as modifications to the site. You can read my new “About” section here. As always, thanks for visiting!
(If you would like to follow the blog by email, please scroll down to the bottom of the page to sign up).
What Did I Miss? 3/24
We’ve come to the end of yet another week dominated by (1) the GOP’s Obamacare replacement plan and (2) the various investigations into what the heck is going on with Russia. 
The Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation hearings gave us a small change of pace, but even that historic event seemed like minor news, mostly lost in coverage of the other two stories. So, what else happened this week?
No ReTweet, No Surrender
Former Congressman John Dingell puts your Twitter game to shame. Even if you’re not on Twitter, you’ll want to know about John Dingell’s Twitter feed. 
Not only is Dingell’s Twitter account extremely entertaining about all sorts of topics outside of politics (sports, the Kardashians, self-deprecating humor), when he wants to, he can wield Twitter as a most effective political weapon. Continue reading
Truthy Is In the Eye of the Beholder
In light of Trump’s, shall we say, dramatic last few weeks, I thought this would be a good time to repost something I wrote a couple months ago about Trump’s unusual view of “the truth”. 
I had actually forgotten about it, but reading the coverage the last couple days about Trump doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on this wire tap claim – plus a slew of articles on his propensity to lie, in general – reminded me about what I had written. Continue reading
Deference Mechanism
In any other Presidential administration, 
the big news Monday would have been the start of hearings for the President’s first Supreme Court nominee. But since this is the Trump presidency, of course that day, like most days so far, had to be different and more dramatic.
Don’t Believe the Hype
[NOTE 5/24: This post was originally written back in March, about the GOP’s first attempt at a health care bill. That bill never even came up for a vote in the House. However, the analysis here still applies to the version of the bill which eventually passed the House as the AHCA on May 4. Two changes: (1) The note at the end of this post, which discusses Essential Health Benefits (EHBs). The note says that the GOP would like to get rid of the requirement for EHB’s in the next phase of their repeal plan, since they couldn’t do it in their bill. However under the bill that actually ended up passing the House, they do get rid of EHBs, or at least they allow for that by waiver. (This was one of the carrots needed to get the Freedom Caucus to sign on). Under the AHCA, states can apply for a waiver to opt out of the EHB requirement. As a result, insurance plans would likely become very skimpy. Please see the note about this at the end for more detail; (2) Because states would also be allowed to waive out of the protections for preexisting conditions, premiums for people who’d been benefiting from such protections could of course increase dramatically.]
Today, let’s get back to that endless treasure box of discussion topics: the GOP health care bill.
In a post last week, I talked about how the GOP preemptively tried to discredit the CBO, because they knew the agency’s impending report on their health care bill would be terrible. However, now that the report is finally out, Republicans are trying out a slightly new (but no less dubious) strategy: they’re continuing to claim the CBO’s predictions can’t be trusted, while simultaneously touting the few aspects of the CBO’s report that look good for them.
What Did I Miss? 3/17
“Repeal & replace” hits a speed bump, the revised travel ban gets rebuffed, and phony wire tap redux. But what else happened this week?
1. The Trump administration unveiled its “skinny” budget plan (a “skinny” budget is basically a general budget outline that doesn’t contain a lot of details, though Trump’s is even skinnier than they usually are). 
Unsurprisingly, it’s pretty much a blueprint of awful.
Trump’s Words Come Back to Haunt Him on Travel Ban
This morning there was another ruling on Trump’s travel ban: a federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against Trump’s travel ban.
The judge’s reasoning here was similar to the judge’s in Hawaii in that he felt Trump’s past statements about Muslims were relevant to the record.
Trump’s revised travel ban on hold nationwide
As I mentioned in my post this afternoon, there were several hearings around the country today in lawsuits attempting to block Trump’s revised travel ban from going into effect at midnight tonight. One of those lawsuits has just succeeded: A federal judge in Hawaii just issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the ban from going into effect nationwide.
The judge’s decision was based on his determination that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit on “Establishment Clause” grounds, i.e. on the basis of religious discrimination.
As some of the legal experts I cited in my earlier post predicted might happen, the judge took into account Trump’s prior history of anti-Muslim statements to give context to the intent behind the ban. From the judge’s order:
The record before this Court is unique. It includes significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order and its related predecessor.
The order then goes on to cite several examples from Trump and members of the Trump team that display the aforementioned “animus.” For example, the judge says, “[t]here is nothing “veiled” about this press release: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shut down of Muslims entering the United States.”
The judge also did not buy the Trump administration argument that they couldn’t possibly be discriminating against Muslims since their ban doesn’t ban all Muslims but only Muslims from a few countries. “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”
DC Deciphered 