"Incoherent" seems too weak a term to describe this reflexive contrarian gibberish 
https://twitter.com/hannnahmmarie/status/1375162278178402308
"On one hand, disenfranchising 700,000 people is bad. O the other hand, enfranchising them would make the Senate slightly less unrepresentative. In conclusion, this would be bad because it would make Republicans mad." 👌
The most remarkable bullshitting done in this op-ed is to discuss the norms of statehood before the Civil War and not the addition of multiple empty western states AFTER the Civil War, because bringing up the latter would completely destroy his argument lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/03/is-dem…
Also, the idea that the 60-vote-supermajority requirement, which isn't old enough to get a learner's permit, has "quasi-constitutional status" is absurd. If this was true, Republicans couldn't have added all those empty western states for purely partisan purposes!
When Wyoming was granted statehood, there were fewer people living there than there are undergraduates currently matriculating at the University of Washington. This hand-wringing over D.C. Statehood is deeply, deeply silly theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
This attempted gotcha is also entirely nonsensical. It's true that the Senate is undemocratic, but it most certainly does not follow that therefore granting statehood to D.C. would make the Senate *less* democratic. Quite the opposite!
Relevant to the question of whether D.C.'s racially diverse population should get the same treatment as Wyoming is that all the empty western states Republicans added in the 19th century allowed them to remain competitive while abandoning civil rights papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
I'll keep this at the ready for all future Feldman columns
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
