DC statehood Megathread (pg 33 - Manchin questioning constitutionality)

[CookieDamage]

Republicans flailing in this thread lmfao

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

AS IS ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

What are you even arguing about at this point?!?

Calm down boo. First of all, abolishing the filibuster has been a hard no for Manchin/Sinema for a while now, but it's hardly the same as overruling a person most of this country has never heard of. Neither have indicated any hostility towards DC statehood, and I'm assuming they aren't gonna suddenly flip flop if DC statehood relies on reconciliation/overruling the parliamentarian.

What are YOU arguing over? or are you just being contrarian/ doom and gloom for the heck of it?

[CookieDamage]

I actually agree that, in an ideal world, DC should just be merged into Maryland. In an ideal world, we'd also split California and Texas into 3 to 5 new states and change quite a bit more about the structure of the US government. But in the world of actually-achievable things, making DC a state is the clear way forward.

That being said, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think the reconciliation route is plausible, and nuking the filibuster remains a tall order. Still, glad dems are putting it on the agenda.

Why?

Because reconciliation is explicitly meant for taxing and spending policy items. Now, there is some legitimate wiggle room in terms of what constitutes such an item (on things like increasing the minimum wage, for example, or introducing a public option - those aren't just revenue or expenditures, but they can be argued to bear a clear connection to them) but using it for something as far-reaching as statehood broadens it to the point of meaninglessness.

That may be why its an imperfect or unwise course of action, but why is it implausible?

I mean, it's implausible for the purpose of getting DC statehood. It's not implausible to get things like the 1.9T stimulus, far from it.

How is it implausible though? especially if we have enough votes.

If we don't have enough votes to kill the filibuster, I highly doubt that we have enough votes to overrule the Parliamentarian (which you'd need to do to apply reconciliation to DC statehood). If anything, the latter seems like a much more serious step.

Pretty sure overruling the parliamentarian is a simple majority vote.

AS IS ABOLISHING THE FILIBUSTER

What are you even arguing about at this point?!?

Calm down boo. First of all, abolishing the filibuster has been a hard no for Manchin/Sinema for a while now, but it's hardly the same as overruling a person most of this country has never heard of. Neither have indicated any hostility towards DC statehood, and I'm assuming they aren't gonna suddenly flip flop if DC statehood relies on reconciliation/overruling the parliamentarian.

What are YOU arguing over? or are you just being contrarian/ doom and gloom for the heck of it?

You're the one who started this argument, so I don't know how I can be the contrarian here.

You just don't seem to understand that overruling the parliamentarian is not a minor step. The parliamentarian is an employee of the Senate who's there to be a neutral arbiter of the rules that the Senate has given itself. Changing the rules is one thing - a majority of Senators can legitimately do that. Overruling the parliamentarian is more than changing the rules - it's basically the Senate deciding there are no rules at all. It's a big f**king deal. Not even Mitch tried to f**k with that process (we forgot it now but the parliamentarian did kick out a bunch of extraneous bullsh*t that the GOP was trying to tack on to the tax bill). If killing the filibuster is the nuclear option, this is the end-of-the-world device. It's a very bad idea and not something that any Democrat should support - and it's obviously not something Manchin and Sinema would actually support.

It's such an end of the world device... that it was already done before... in 1975... so there's absolutely precedent thus it's ridiculous to imply its something apocalyptic.

Also there's no guarantee the parliamentarian would be opposed to it since DC's budget falls under the federal government and as such it can be very well tacked onto a larger bill.

[CookieDamage]

Well, I guess we'll just have to find out. Have fun with that.

I don't know what the 1975 instance pertained to, but I somehow doubt it's remotely comparable to what we're talking about here.

The parliamentarian was overruled, so whatever the issue was, such an action isn't as bad as you are dooming it out to be. It seems you are reading the minds of Manchin, Sinema, and the Parliamentarian though so I guess everyone else is wrong and you are right.

[CookieDamage]

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?

[CookieDamage]

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?

LeBrun didn't have reconciliation powers

[CookieDamage]

why was this thread locked?

[CookieDamage]

Noah fence but there's not gonna be a Dem senator who's like "hmm i want the slimmest possible majority so I can be a deciding vote." Dem senators want to be in the majority and a healthy majority at that. Manchin ain't gonna shy away from getting more Dem senators, especially since he can have more wiggle room to vote against Dem policies that his constituents hate cuz he knows they'll pass anyways with the extra Demmies.

[CookieDamage]

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

Just merge Maryland and DC together

That would be way more of a power-grab than yall think DC statehood ever would be. The lack of brain cells...

[CookieDamage]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

[CookieDamage]

Any actual news on the progression of this bill?

Not since Carper introduced the Senate companion to Norton's House bill, & probably not for at least another ~2 months, given that the COVID relief reconciliation package will be taking up all of the oxygen & legislative focus in the meantime.

By the time it sees the floor we will have lost the majority.

Mark my words. We will not get either statehood this year.

I could reverse jinx it a million times, offer all the bets in the world - it’s clear this isn’t a priority for leadership. If only Dem leadership was a little more ruthless - they could take a thing or two from the con artists in GOP leadership

you are literally always wrong.

[CookieDamage]

I wish Sinemuh and Manchin would signal how they feel about this. I guess they're holding their cards to their chests

[CookieDamage]

So what are the actual odds of this passing? Haven't been fully paying attention to it.

According to Peak Harry, 100%.

I'm a lot more dubious. It requires Manchin and Sinema agreeing the filibuster should not apply to statehood. And Sinema says everything should require a 60 vote threshold.

What Sinema says =/= actual rules.

[CookieDamage]

So what are the actual odds of this passing? Haven't been fully paying attention to it.

According to Peak Harry, 100%.

I'm a lot more dubious. It requires Manchin and Sinema agreeing the filibuster should not apply to statehood. And Sinema says everything should require a 60 vote threshold.

What Sinema says =/= actual rules.

Ok? She needs to vote to uphold the filibuster won't apply. So what she thinks matters.

If she votes against statehood arguing that it needs the filibuster (it doesnt), she'll be seeing her 39% approval rating plummet even further.

[CookieDamage]

Purrrrr

[CookieDamage]

Also

https://theweek.com/articles/960235/statehood-dc-puerto-rico-only-needs-50-votes

[CookieDamage]

Let's imagine a hypothetical:

In an alternate world, Guantanamo Bay is a little larger and home to 700,000 Cubans who've escaped there. They are American citizens. This Guantanamo Territory votes overwhelmingly for statehood, and everyone knows it's going to be a Republican state. I wouldn't expect Democrats to be very excited about adding 2 new Republican senators for free, and I don't think they would step in and help it become a state if Republicans didn't have the votes already. But once it was clear that Republicans had a trifecta and were going to be admitting Guantanamo as a state, Democrats aren't going to vote no en masse and kill their inroads with Cubans in the current 50 states. The 2 Republican senators from Guantanamo are a sunk cost - don't sink your chances in other states by fighting the inevitable.

Good point. I think its still going to be a near party line vote in the senate. MAYBE Murkowski. Could be wrong.

[CookieDamage]

naysayers are still utterly convinced this needs the filibuster to be approved. All that needs to happen is that manchin and sinema decide it doesnt need the filibuster pursuant to the fact that state admission isn't a legislative issue. The parliamentarian could rule similarly and even if she doesn't, the Dems can just lift the filibuster for admitting states. Manchin and Sinema wont oppose that no matter what theatrical schtick they pull.

[CookieDamage]

naysayers are still utterly convinced this needs the filibuster to be approved. All that needs to happen is that manchin and sinema decide it doesnt need the filibuster pursuant to the fact that state admission isn't a legislative issue. The parliamentarian could rule similarly and even if she doesn't, the Dems can just lift the filibuster for admitting states. Manchin and Sinema wont oppose that no matter what theatrical schtick they pull.

If this was the case they would have passed the DC Statehood in 2009 when they had 59 votes, Rs blocked it then and it wasn't passed

There was way less Dem appetite in 2009 than there is today and thats almost all that matters. Also I'm pretty sure there wasn't a direct statehood bill in 2009, so your point is kinda moot.

[CookieDamage]

naysayers are still utterly convinced this needs the filibuster to be approved. All that needs to happen is that manchin and sinema decide it doesnt need the filibuster pursuant to the fact that state admission isn't a legislative issue. The parliamentarian could rule similarly and even if she doesn't, the Dems can just lift the filibuster for admitting states. Manchin and Sinema wont oppose that no matter what theatrical schtick they pull.

If this was the case they would have passed the DC Statehood in 2009 when they had 59 votes, Rs blocked it then and it wasn't passed

There was way less Dem appetite in 2009 than there is today and thats almost all that matters. Also I'm pretty sure there wasn't a direct statehood bill in 2009, so your point is kinda moot.

It remains to be seen if there are the votes there, but Rs are still gonna block it.

Rs are also the minority in both houses. In the house, they don't even need a filibuster for statehood, so the minority can just complain. I can't imagine any house dem blocking DC statehood either.

In the senate, there's a case, as I and many others have stated, that statehood requires no filibuster as it is not a legislative matter, so the minority is further unable to really block this. If Manchin and Sinema agree it doesn't need the filibuster, which I don't see as particularly unlikely, then all statehood needs is Kamala's VP tiebreaking vote.

[CookieDamage]

Keep thinking that it doesn't require the lifting of the Fillibuster I am honestly waiting to know

You don't know everything, otherwise you would be on TV not on Atlas making comments

Literally among the strangest comments I've ever read...