ConfirmThem

Andrew,
By staggering coincidence, I have a fairly lengthy piece making the same argument here. I originally wrote it back when you posted about Dean Starr's article in the WaPo a couple of months ago, but finally had a chance to finish it up over thanksgiving. I go to some lengths to rebut the arguments that (a) the Constitution's plain text permits voting representation, or that (b) the original understanding of the seat of government clause was other than that the District's residents would be disenfranchised.

~Simon

"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) (Black, dissenting)

Thanks Simon. That Colbert report was pretty funny.

Yup. I spent nineteen pages explaining why the District of Columbia can't have a voting representative, but any nineteen seconds of that interview makes the case for why they shouldn't more eloquently than anything I could write. ;)

(To be honest, I refuse to believe that she wasn't in on the gag. I mean, she couldn't be that stupid. I choose to believe that no member of Congress can be that dumb.)

You're both so right. One point I made to a friend when this proposal recently reared its ugly head was to ask how this would affect the constitutional provision of a presidential election being thrown to the House, with each STATE delegation having one vote. Even leaving aside, the unconstitutional and irreality of the proposal (i.e. D.C. not being a state), this proposal would give the Dems one more guaranteed vote, while the GOP gained no vote in such a scenario!

I don't think we need to worry about a presidential election ever being thrown into the HOR....[eyes roll]

Actually, all the talk here in Utah is that Utah will get a fourth seat along with DC getting one.

Just a lousy idea on all levels. It treats the Constitution as just a collection of chips to be traded around, with a sop to 'diversity' & political correctness to boot. No different than the "Rehnquist was a conservative so he can be replaced by a conservative, but O'Connor is a MODERATE and a female so she needs to be replaced by a moderate female" mindset.

It's this type of thinking that will lead directly to Justice Callahan. Every bit as bad when Repubs do it as when Dems do it.

As for AMK, isn't that first quote actually from Douglas?

No different than the "Rehnquist was a conservative so he can be replaced by a conservative, but O'Connor is a MODERATE and a female so she needs to be replaced by a moderate female" mindset.

When Scalia retires the call will be to replace him with a "moderate" (i.e. liberal) out of "fairness" and to create "balance" and it will be even better if it's not a white male replacing him.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

Not a surprise, as the judicial fights will stain both him as well as McCain. George "Macaca" Allen should bow out too since like Gore, he couldn't win his home state!

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid...