2010 EV seat after the DC bill is passed

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

S. 160 would indeed increase the size of the House of Representatives to 437 if enacted and it passes Constitutional muster.  The former might happen, but the second won't unless the Supreme Court dodges the issue by failing to find anyone who sues has standing to sue.

Incidentally, I note that DC is limited to a single Representative in this bill.  While that is all its population warrants now, that hasn't always been the case.  Under the Censuses of 1910 to 1970, DC would have been entitled to two Representatives had it been a State (assuming all other States kept the number of Representative they would have had.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Constitution is clear that DC should not have a member of Congress.  This Bill should be struck down.

At one time the Constitution was clear that women could not vote. Your point is?

Actually that's not the case.  The Constitution never denied women the vote, though until Amendment XIX, it didn't require them to have the vote either.

Conversely, Article I Section 2 Clause 3 makes it explicit that only States have Representatives.  There are only three ways for the district to vote for Representatives constitutionally:
1) Retrocession to Maryland
2) Admission as a State
3) Pass a Constitutional Amendment

Neither Maryland nor DC is in favor of retrocession and while the consent of DC is not needed, that of Maryland is.

DC is simply too dependent on the Federal Government to be granted Statehood

The Constitutional Amendment route was tried once before, but only 16 States approved it before the Amendment expired.  Still it could be tried again perhaps without a seven-year limit to let the idea percolate longer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Puerto Rico has been repeatedly been offered the choice of Statehood, but chosen primarily for financial reasons to reject it.  Apply the full set of Federal taxes to Puerto Rico and I think they'd quickly clamor for Statehood and the six Representative they'd have.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The DC bill will be overturned in Court, making it's effects void.

No, it will not be overturned in court. And if so then the people that live in DC shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Why won't it be overturned in court?  The Constitution is pretty clear that only States get representatives in the House, and that DC is not a state.

That's if it gets to court.  There is a potential problem in finding someone who has standing to sue.  Assuming Muon's estimate for how the 2010 census will go is correct, then the party with the strongest standing would in theory be Washington State, as by his estimate they would get the 437th Representative if DC doesn't get one.  OTOH, if the size of the HoR was left at 435, Texas would be the State most aggrieved by the change.  However, since the increase in size is linked to the addition of a representative for DC, it might be enough for the Court to find a lack of standing immediately.

However, all is not lost, there are two other ways for there to be a clear case of standing, but it'll likely take a while for the situation to occur.

1)  If an act passes the House only because of the Representative for DC and/or a Representative from the State that gets the 436th seat being among the ayes, then someone who would be adversely affected by that act could sue claiming that the law was never passed Constitutionally.

2) Since S. 160 as written when I last looked at it also gives DC Article V powers, an amendment that stalls at 38 States approving it with DC not approving would present a potential case.  (With 51 States, 39 are needed to pass an amendment instead of the current 38)

Both are quite unlikely but they would give a way for the bill to be challenged.

Since so few bills

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And a sitting Congressman whose vote has been diluted wouldn't have standing because?

The size of the House of Representatives is a political question which the Supreme Court tries to avoid, and the expansion to 437 is purely political (the linkage to giving DC a representative is not enough to create a tort out of the issue of individual dilution.  Given that in Raines v. Byrd, the Supremes overturned a lower court injunction against the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 sought by Senator Byrd on the basis of a lack of standing I'm certain that the Supremes will find that Congressmen will not have standing on this issue.  It wasn't until the line-item veto was used and those adversely affected by the use of the veto sued that the Supremes took the case and in Clinton v. City of New York ruled the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional.  Similarly, we may have to wait for a similar case in which the vote of the DC Representative was essential to the passage of an act before the Supremes find someone has standing to sue.

Is there any chance Obama would veto it?  Presidents were originally only supposed to veto bills that went against the Constitution; might Obama do that?

He might choose to let it pass without his signature and leave it to the Supreme Court to rule on, but I can't imagine him vetoing a bill that is such political red meat to his base.