Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court shattered one more liberal dream by rejecting an appeal of a lower court ruling that D.C. residents are not entitled to voting representation in Congress. That court cited a 2000 SCOTUS ruling that the Constitution does not require that DC must have a right to vote in Congress.
DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton expressed deep disappointment but insisted that this ruling "has no bearing on D.C. statehood, which would give D.C. residents not only voting representation in Congress but full control over their local affairs."
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it does. The same Constitution that the SCOTUS found does not require that DC have a vote in Congress also specifically states in Article 1, Section 8, that the nation’s capital will not be part of a state nor treated as a state, but in a neutral district under the sole authority of Congress, where the representatives of all states can meet on equal footing.
Since this case shows that the SCOTUS will look to the Constitution in deciding such issues, then how can it not suggest that they will bar DC statehood, just as the Constitution does?