DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[Badger]

I'll have what he's having.

[Badger]

Waste of time.

Over 700,000 DC residents, or at least close to 90% of them, wholeheartedly disagree.

[Badger]

DC is not meant to be a state , just merge the residential parts of it with Maryland . If you really wanna make that part a state get rid of the 23rd amendment

The founding fathers didn't know it would one day have 700,000 people literally in a "taxation without representation" situation.

Every single founding father would support this bill if they were somehow still alive. Every single one of them was strongly motivated by "taxation without representation."

Also, while we have wisely kept at the end expanded the basic legal rights and Liberties are founding fathers established in the Bill of Rights, pretty much everything the founders established regarding voting rights we have wisely jettisoned over the centuries. DC is "not meant to be a state" the same way non landowners weren't supposed to vote, non-whites weren't supposed to vote, women weren't supposed to vote, Senators weren't supposed to be elected popularly rather than by state legislators, presidents and vice presidents were meant to be elected on the same ticket, 18 for 20 year olds for men to vote, and DC wasn't supposed to have any vote for the Electoral College Etc. Every one of these changes from what the founders "meant to be" was unquestionably for the better of our society and as a functioning democracy.

Seriously, unless one can literally say that they are both fine with 700000 Americans being denied representation while enduring Taxation, and can come up with a cognisable reason why the actual District can't be limited to a few blocks of essential government buildings such as the White House and Capitol, there is not a single worthwhile non partisan ( i. E. Republican) basis to opposed DC statehood.

[Badger]

I don't oppose DC statehood and it is ultimately up to that jurisdiction to decide. Some other options include it remaining a federal district or be absorbed into Maryland by revoking the 23rd Amendment.

I think Puerto Rico should become a state first. 

For the umpteenth million time.

Maryland doesn't want to absorb DC.

DC does not want to be absorbed into Maryland.

The two have been separate legal entities for literally hundreds of years.

Leaving over 700,000 American residents without congressional representation and subject to Federal Fiat by non locally elected officials is repugnant to the basic American values of local self- governance and no taxation without representation.

There is absolutely no reason on Earth to support absorption into Maryland unless someone partisan lie wants to avoid the likelihood of two additional Democrats elected to the Senate, period end of sentence.

There has yet to be a single ostensibly non-partisan argument raised against DC statehood more cogent than " well, it's always been that way , so there."

Enough. Let's finish this long overdue reform.

[Badger]

I don't oppose DC statehood and it is ultimately up to that jurisdiction to decide. Some other options include it remaining a federal district or be absorbed into Maryland by revoking the 23rd Amendment.

I think Puerto Rico should become a state first. 

Maryland doesn't want to absorb DC.

DC does not want to be absorbed into Maryland.

How do you know?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington,_D.C._statehood_referendum

[Badger]

Waste of time.

Over 700,000 DC residents, or at least close to 90% of them, wholeheartedly disagree.

I meant it's not happening.  I'll be proven correct.

Do you wanna elaborate?

If the voting requirement is a majority vote it may pass, but I thought it was 2/3rds.  I don't believe there's any way it can pass by a 2/3 vote.

It's just a plain majority vote for admitting new states, the filibuster is the only real obstacle in DC's case.

Isn't that a little like 1940 France saying the only thing stopping them from achieving air superiority is the luftwaffe?

[Badger]

In a 50/50 Senate, each individual senator has a unique motivation to not add new members to the body.  That's not going to be lost on Sinema, Manchin, Collins or Murkowski, especially.

Greater chance of being in majority > greater chance of being deciding vote

No.  In a 50/50 split, every Democratic senator is the deciding vote. 

Very true, but in Practical terms barring some measure that somehow specifically and negatively some other Democratic senators home state, Joe manchin will be the de facto deciding vote 99% of the time oh, and both he and Chuck Schumer know it.

Heck, with two new Democratic senators from DC, depending on exactly how the midterms shake out, he has a much better chance of still being the deciding vote after the 22 midterms than if DC is not admitted as a state. Regardless he knows he'll otherwise almost surely be in the Senate minority and lose his energy committee chairmanship at that point without said DC senators. Yes, there's certainly a chance the midterms could go bad enough for Democrats that he's in the minority even with those DC Senators added, but without them it's almost guaranteed.

[Badger]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Why would those things be connected? If Georgia Republicans think that "Maine-ruling" Georgia is in their best interest, they'll do it.

It’s called both sides using this as leverage against each other to make sure the other thing doesn’t happen .

Have you ever heard about this crazy notion of just doing the right thing?

[Badger]

If DC statehood happens , then Georgia gets Maine ruled , then other things happen .

Why would those things be connected? If Georgia Republicans think that "Maine-ruling" Georgia is in their best interest, they'll do it.

It’s called both sides using this as leverage against each other to make sure the other thing doesn’t happen .

Have you ever heard about this crazy notion of just doing the right thing?

The right thing is making sure neither thing happen

Care to offer even a scintilla of an argument as to why depriving 700,000 taxpayers of congressional representation is "the right thing"?

[Badger]

I’ve heard talk that passing the stimulous even with just Dem votes might not happen until as late as MARCH?!? The fact things are moving so slow on something like that... tells me that it’s clearly evident neither statehood is happening. It just isn’t.

The Lahey health scare should have been a giant wake up call. But clearly everything is moving at a snails pace. And before someone tells me that’s how legislating works: they rammed through a Supreme Court justice in about two seconds. So they could do it if they wanted too.

No, I'm very much gonna tell you that that's how legislating works, because it is, given that reconciliation isn't exactly a process which can just be rammed through in "2 seconds" (which was actually 39 days, for scale): first a budget resolution has to be written-up (which is what's happening as we speak) & then pass in both chambers, then the reconciliation bill itself has to be written-up & passed in both chambers, but before the Senate can do their part in passing it, they're obligated to hold a time-consuming amendment vote-a-rama, during which literally hundreds of amendments have to be voted on. Getting the COVID stimulus passed through the reconciliation process was always gonna be a time-consuming process. It took 6 months for the GOP to try & use the reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare (which failed), & then another 6 months to successfully use it to get their tax cuts. The fact that the Democrats will get it done this time in just ~70 days (as compared to ACB having been confirmed in 39, which you equate to "2 seconds") is a testament to how fast things are moving. If ACB was confirmed in "2 seconds," then this stimulus is being passed in 3.5.

Didn’t realize they had to go through a ridiculous amount of votes such as that. Just seems that time moves slow on things that matter and on GOP wish lists it just breezes through

Um what things on the GOP list broze through:


- they failed at healthcare reform

- they took almost a whole year to get tax reform passed even though they had begun working on it in Jan of 2016

Kindly don't refer to the attempt at repealing Obamacare as " Healthcare reform".

[Badger]

This thread in a nutshell:

Peak Harry/Brucejoel/Badger: We must pass DC statehood, it’s a matter of equal representation! We would tooootally want to admit a GOP territory if they were underrepresented! This is certainly not about the Democratic senators we have said we wanted, no sireee!”

OSR: “The right thing to do is 100% to leave hundreds of thousands of tax paying Americans unrepresented because I want to keep the Reagan/Trump-cultists in power. Also can we find a way to keep those scary brown people in Georgia from voting, that would be great...

MillenialModerate: “Oh my god it’s been two days and DC isn’t a state yet with two senators. This is proof Schumer sucks and I am so ANGRY! The Democrats should have passed DC statehood five milliseconds after they took the majority, screw you Schumer and Markey! Kennedy would have passed it by now.”

OC: “Hahahaha Progmod told me Schumer pass DC statehood, but he was wrong just like about Georgia. Schumer doesn’t have votes to break filibuster and reconciliation, DC statehood won’t happen until 2023 when Democrats will win in a landslide because of recovering economy and get a filibuster proof MAJORITY 😎😎😎”

Yes, except that first position espoused by me Harry and Bruce Joel isn't ironic. Kindly stick a cork in your unnecessarily smug attitude, because you really missed the boat on this.

I don't think any of us would deny appreciating the political advantage of the two additional Democratic senators, and that we would probably be more grudging about it if it was an overwhelmingly Republican territory. But I daresay over 90% of us would still back it because it's the right thing to do.

You see, belief in equality and fairness is a fundamental Hallmark of progressive liberal thought. Belief in those things makes us progressives, and in turn and that's what makes us Democrats, which in turn makes us want to extend the franchise to  the near three quarter of a million  unrepresented DC residents. Trying to project Republican obsession with self-dealing and power hording over basic principles of fairness onto the rest of us is just 2 + 2 = 5 factually incorrect.

[Badger]

Dc statehood is unconstitutional.

Focus on Puerto rico.

What's your evidence that "Dc statehood is unconstitutional"?

Our resident qanon Karen read it on the internet!

[Badger]

“No taxation without representation”

Not the same thing as DC statehood.

Yeah, this is the most dishonest aspect of Democrats' whole "DC statehood" charade.

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District.  Such control is necessary to ensure the Federal government doesn't have to operate under the undue influence of any state, which is a noble enough reason to oppose D.C. statehood on its merits.

As I have said before:

The reason D.C. should not be a state today is the same reason why it was created in the first place:  so that Congress and the Federal government would not be under the undue authority or influence of any state.  The constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers are fundamentally incompatible with D.C. statehood.  Federal actions and officials must be independent of state governments and not unduly bound by any state's particular laws.  One sovereign cannot live in the house of another.         

Turning the seat of the federal government into an unpopulated enclave of some new state is no better a solution.    The everyday needs of the Federal government for utilities, roads, safety and transportation could be choked and snarled by a "Douglass Commonwealth" unhappy with some Federal (in)action.  It would be a "plenary power" of any state formed out of D.C. to interfere with these essential services and exert undue control over the functioning of the federal government.  Maybe the new state would never seek to act this way, but it wouldn't have to be intentional for it to inhibit the functioning of our federal government.  The Douglass Commonwealth could (like many Democrat-run cities) simply wreck the city budget, amass huge amounts of municipal debt, resultingly hallow out local police/schools/infrastructure and leave the Federal government to operate in an unsafe, decrepit shell of a formerly great national capital.  Exclusive control of D.C. by the federal government is the only option that preempts either of these scenarios.   

If admitted, the Douglass Commonwealth would be grossly unlike any other state in our nation, either historically or today.  The federal government is not a visitor upon D.C., the city has grown up around and entirely dependent on it.  It has no identifiable history or economy other than surviving off Federal tax receipts.  It is only 5 percent the size of Rhode Island.  Its 100% urban population would not be home to a single farmer or miner.  As a state, D.C. would be the richest yet have one of the highest poverty rates, simultaneously the most educated yet with the worst high school graduation rates.  Admitting D.C. as a state does not improve upon what some proponents of the idea claim as the great failing of our U.S. Senate - there it would elevate a small, idiosyncratic enclave to the same level of huge, diverse states home to tens of millions.   

All this being said, I'm sympathetic to permanent D.C. residents who want voting representation in Congress.  I'd support adding additional seats so that D.C. (and Puerto Rico and other territories, FWIW) can have voting rights in the House commensurate with their population.   

While I could live with DC being granted congressional representation without statehood - - but let's make it clear, the former is what Republicans truly oppose and fear-- but it would still be unjust. Congress has effed-up and overridden local Democratic rule in decision-making more times than one can count in a grotesquely heavy-handed way. Having Yokel congressman completely alien to the culture and values of DC residence is abhorrent to the concept of local democracy.

Ignoring the sputtering about debt-ridden democratic-run municipalities-- the entire West Coast, Rocky Mountain metropolises, and much of the Eastern Corridor all say hello, or at least they would if they decided to move to someplace with a far lower standard of living like Mississippi - - your concerns about a dc-based State entity somehow snarling the role of Congress it's not entirely misplaced. However, I submit the risk is limited enough that it is unbalanced by the repeated denial of local governance. DC's and entire employment, economy, and infrastructure is inherently closely tied to Northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs of DC. If either of those democratic-run governments decided to engage in your hypothetical retaliation against unfavorable action by a republican Congress, it might not be able to do so quite to the same extent of Douglas Commonwealth, but the effect would be severe and well established. Given the population and other growth of the district, its current borders of trying to provide a buffer against state government hey intimidation an interference is already an insufficiently sized anachronism.

Besides, if you really are so concerned about those people turning Olive DC into some modern-day Detroit - - yeah, DC was known as a murder capital for some years, but it's incredible how much of that violence is concentrated on the Eastern Anacostia Shore neighborhoods-- then hollow out an actual District of Columbia with ongoing Capitol Police Protection for a about a square kilometer or so around the National Mall, White House, Congress, Etc. If you REALLY fear the encroachment of those types on to the federal government's essential Services, give the district its own fire department, sanitation department, and sewer system. Hardly a waste considering a typical small-town municipality has such full-time services.

Again, the hypothetical Easley surmountable issue of supposed state government intimidation of the federal government does not begin to outweigh The Chronic wrongheaded interference of local Affairs by Father Knows Best minded congressional committees.

[Badger]

Congress could pass legislation allowing D.C. to have voting representation in the House and Senate without revoking Congressional control over the District. 

I’m pretty sure that’s not true and that you’d need a Constitutional amendment. But either way,  no GOP member of congress has actually proposed any such thing. So it seems pretty disingenuous to say, “why are democrats ramming through statehood instead of this great compromise we’re not actually offering?” when the GOP position is, in fact, that DC residents should have NO representation.

A resolution to amend the Constitution is a piece of legislation before Congress.

And there is at least one Republican in the Senate who supports giving D.C. voting representation in the House.

Oooh. One whole member of Congress!!

Steve Roger's point remains unassailed.

[Badger]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.   

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

[Badger]

So are Republicans going to support this amendment?  Because if they aren't, what is the point? The primary reason statehood via shrinking the district is being pushed is because no alternatives have enough support to pass.

The point is that the unique status of our Federal District should not be changed absent an affirmative Constitutional supermajority and ratification by the three-fourths of the several States.  This is the same way D.C. was given presidential electors.  If there isn't such a majority then pro-statehood advocates need to do a better job of winning the debate.  

They are criticizing it because Democrats will win those seats. Few, if any, Republicans are going out of their way to sympathize with the situation DC residents find themselves, representation-wise.

No, they are making the point that Democrats' sudden interest in D.C. statehood is a naked partisan power play.  Democrats cared not about "taxation without representation" when they had trifectas in 1993-95 or 2009-11, and there is little doubt Democrats' interest in this stems from the difficult math they perceive in keeping a working Senate majority long term.

Utter unadulterated bullsh**t.

Once again, I have a hard time seeing how anyone would ever pay for your representation in court lol  

Because I spot bulsh**t readily and call it out on it in plain truthful terms. I don't give a ridiculous argument from the opposing side any more respect then it's ridiculousness deserves. And because of that, I win.

Also, see my Sig. Jefferson was right , and your post is exhibit a of his point.

[Badger]

So I have an interesting possible compromise...  

If Virginia were to secede Arlington County and Alexandria back to DC, that would push Virginia back to being purplish and give the GOP a shot at their senate seats again.

Doubt they would agree, but I wish it was possible.

That is the worst proposal I have ever heard of.

Chill dude, it’s his 7th post in 14 years

That doesn't mean it's still not a terrible idea.

[Badger]

Crossposting from the other thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/dc-statehood-voting-rights.html

Senate Democrats are getting pressured to add DC statehood into this bill.

And, like, duhhhh, right? Why the hell would you pass a law that provides "support" for DC statehood but doesn't actually enact it? If you're going to go to such lengths to pass voting rights protection, presumably killing or heavily nerfing the filibuster for this bill, why not put everything in there rather than having yet another huge fight? If Manchin, Sinema, and the rest are willing to do what it takes to pass HR1 (and I think they are), they'll also pass DC statehood.

In fact, they should go ahead and pre-admit Puerto Rico, Marianas, and the Virgin Islands as states as well. When Hawaii and Alaska were admitted by Congress, the admission was preconditioned on having a positive statewide referendum, a state constitution transmitted to the president, and a presidential proclamation to declare them to be a state. Thus, use this act to admit 54 states, effective when all of that happens. DC has already had their referendum and will transmit their constitution to Biden immediately. PR has had their referendum, and can transmit their constitution when the territorial government is ready. The other 2 aren't nearly as far along in the process, but this will allow them to become states immediately once they're ready.

Actually, no. While the 2020 Puerto Rican referendum was finally an unambiguous referendum in favor of Statehood in the abstract. There wasn't a referendum on the specific terms of Statehood.  In previous admissions, the order has been adoption of a State Constitution, followed by acceptance thereof by the Territory and the Congress under such terms as set by Congress.  There's no certainty that terms offered by Congress will be acceptable to the people of Puerto Rico. As I've mentioned before, it's uncertain how much of the recent increase in support there in Puerto Rico is based upon the hope it would prove a way out of the Puerto Rican debt crisis, but I see zero chance that a Puerto Rican statehood bill can pass this Congress without the new State assuming all current Commonwealth debt.

All this, plus a sub-53% yes vote actually kinda was ambiguous. Or at least an underwhelming basiz on which to proceed towards statehood. And I say that as a PR statehood supporter.

[Badger]

Biden wouldn't be making this statement if it weren't a done deal.

Yes he would because he's trying to make it happen. You really think Manchin & Sinema have given Biden private assurances that they will vote to overrule the parliamentarian in the event she rules the filibuster applies to statehood?

Maybe?

[Badger]

My God, can Republicans and conservatives just STFU about this whole well, give it to Maryland or Virginia BS? No reason it should happen, no reason it will happen.

Taxation without representation is a fundamentally wrong and poisonous notion our country was founded on fighting against. If it is likely to be and easy Democratic pick up a very Senate seats in a congressional seat because your party for the last half-century plus hasn't been able to do jack schitt in terms of picking up more than the thinnest sliver of the African-American vote, that is 100% on you and a $hit reason continue denying DC residents congressional representation.

Of the closest thing to a good faith argument any opponent has ever even half-heartedly tried raising is the claim that somehow an independent state of Douglas some point in the future might theoretically try to use its local government to pressure or intimidate Congress. Because if there's one thing the Republican party in 2021 stands Foursquare against is unlawfully threatening or pressuring Congress, amirite?

There are so many ways this could readily be avoided short of continuing to deny DC statehood. How about including in the DC statehood bill that the emergency powers granted under the District of Columbia home rule Act would not be negated, thereby giving the executive branch control over the DC police for an emergency? How about carving out a narrow area of essential government buildings focused around the National Mall, Congress, the White House, and provide them their own infrastructure of police, water, garbage, Etc? Hell, as we already know, many of these buildings such  already have their own organized police forces like the Capitol Police. But there's never a single suggestion of that, or when confronted with such a suggestion that response is usually stammering and hurumphing.

Perhaps the most telling evidence that DC statehood opponents don't really give a sh**t about the supposed theoretical threat of local government pressure though, is the same people who raise this argument in one breath in the very next argue to Simply dissolve DC and give it to Maryland and / or Virginia! In short, the same opponents of DC statehood based on the theory of a non federally-controlled city of Washington, Douglass supposedly leaning on federal government have absolutely zero concern about that happening by the non federally-controlled controlled city of Washington, Maryland! Of COURSE it's all about keeping DC from electing its own senators and house representative! LOL!

We get it. Power is everything. You would disenfranchise not just 700,000 people but 7 million, 70 million, whatever it takes with gerrymandering, voter suppression bills, clinging to the undemocratic electoral college, abusing the hell out of filibuster, and anything else that subverts democracy to ensure your hold on minority rule power. All the while blabbering something Republic not a democracy something something. Which never made an lick of sense to begin with.

Beating up on DC statehood opponents is low-hanging fruit, I know, but I'm just so fed up with them, and because they are just so disingenuous and anti-democratic about any other issue under the sun, Republicans in General as well.

[Badger]

We've admitted 37 new states, but we've never told a territory looking to upgrade to statehood that they would just have to join an existing state if they want statehood.

It would be one thing to break that precedent if DC had 50,000 people in it or something, but when it's larger than 1 existing states, there's no non-partisan-hacky reason to expect DC to do something no one has ever had to do before.

I would respect Republicans a lot more if they would just admit their opposition to DC statehood is about the 2 senate seats and nothing more. They're not fooling anyone with the pathetic and racist nonsense they've put out there.

Two states actually. Wyoming and Vermont.

There's an off chance that by the end of next year it could overtake Alaska as well.

[Badger]

King, Kelly, Manchin, Sinema, have all expressed reservation about statehood so I would celebrate yet

No they haven't. They've all said something along the lines of "i have to look more into it" which is nowhere near a reservation and especially nowhere near opposition.

“I’m going to look into it,” is a nice way of saying “No.”

It's a nice way of saying either yes or no. In this case I think you are Miss reading the tea leaves.

[Badger]

So far the GOP rhetoric against it has been so ignorant like rising crime despite crime rising everywhere else, population requirements despite already passing two states in population, or the idea that there is no car dealership in which there is one. It clear they have no messaging strategy for the public sphere or in the courts other than "if DC is made a state it will elect Democrats". Right now the only thing Republicans have to hang on to is Manchin. The fact that he hasn't definitely come out against statehood other than joking that he supports adding DC to WV suggests his position is not enough to secure Republicans' nervousness.

And in Cotton's case not only ridiculous, but a blatant dog whistle as well

No car dealership? What? We would all be much better off if we eliminated the dealership model and just bought directly from the manufacturer and cut out all the scammers and artificial price increases they come with.

Not like having or not having car dealerships should matter, but it took me literally 1 minute to find multiple car dealerships within DC city limits (admittedly I don't know anything about them but they do exist)

DC has 2 airports as well, Reagan in the city limits, and Dulles in the DC metro area. It's just a excuse for Republicans to stick it to the blacks in DC.

Out of interest, I read an article on the conservative media watchdog Newsbusters railing against media "advocacy" for D.C. statehood. The article included a video of segments from NBC's Today. Those segments highlighted comments made by Nancy Mace and Tom Cotton in opposition to the bill. Mace claimed that D.C. doesn't meet the requirements to be a congressional district, while Cotton praised Wyoming as a "well-rounded, working class" state. These claims were obviously ridiculous.

[Badger]

What rights are those? Electing senators isn’t a right.

Be honest with yourself. Democrats couldn’t care less about giving people voting rights. If they did, they would’ve made DC a state in 2009, when they had full Control of Congress. So why are they doing it now? 3 words.

Power, power, power.

They did try, and it was crafted to appease Republicans but died due to an unrelated amendment concerning gun control in DC. Nothing about what happened screams "power, power, power":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-house-finally-voted-to-support-dc-statehood-its-a-needed-step/2019/03/12/f171771c-4434-11e9-8aab-95b8d80a1e4f_story.html

A promising and pragmatic bipartisan effort to give the District a voting member in the House, balanced against an additional seat for the traditionally Republican state of Utah, was sabotaged in 2009 by inclusion of a poisonous amendment that would have overturned the city’s gun-control laws.

As is true with many policy proposals, the idea of shrinking the district and creating a state from the rest needed time to make the rounds and gain support from lawmakers, activists and other proponents.

This whole situation would be downright amusing if it weren't sad for the people in DC. To the GOP, any Democrat proposing statehood is just after power. Ironically, as explicitly stated by numerous Republican lawmakers, it's also clear that the reason for intense resistance to this idea among Republicans is because of two new Democratic Senators (or power).

How is DC ever supposed to get representation in Congress in this case? This is how you end up with Democrats just saying saying to ram statehood through. Republicans are never going to support it because they don't want to empower their opposition. Meanwhile, there isn't exactly an avalanche of Democratic Senators kicking down Manchin's door to beat him into submission on statehood, even knowing it would make their ability to pass their agenda easier. In fact, HR1 and DC statehood are beginning to fall to the wayside, priority-wise.

Doesn't sound like Democrats are all about "power, power, power."

I never said it wasn’t equally a power grab among Republicans as well. Of course it is. But when both moves are power grabs, I just feel like keeping things the same is better than changing 240 years of precedent.

Muh BOTHsidz!1!

So now you back slid from it being unconstitutional to mere precedent? Jim Crow had precedent, why not keep it? Poll taxes, fraudulently applied literacy tests, etc etc etc. Bad ideas have precedent and such precedent should have zero precedential value in being broken.