Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23175
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#1 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon May 14, 2018 9:41 am

I haven't seen the ruling yet, but it was a 6-3 decision that said the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which said that states could not legalize sports gambling anywhere other than in Nevada (which was grandfathered in) violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The immediate effect of this ruling is to allow New Jersey (which challenged the Federal ban) to start allowing sports wagering, with other states likely to follow.

I'm not sure how this ruling will impact other Federal attempts to pre-empt state legislation, since, as this article indicates, the 1992 Sports Act was worded somewhat unusually. It would be interesting to read the opinion by Justice Alito to see how broad the ruling actually is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ry-n868956
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23175
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#2 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon May 14, 2018 9:47 am

Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#3 Post by Bob Juch » Mon May 14, 2018 11:08 am

silverscreenselect wrote:Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451
That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#4 Post by BackInTex » Mon May 14, 2018 12:44 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451
That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#5 Post by Bob Juch » Mon May 14, 2018 2:00 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451
That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.
Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#6 Post by BackInTex » Mon May 14, 2018 3:09 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.
Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
It does not in any way mean that.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23175
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#7 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon May 14, 2018 3:35 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.
Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
It does not in any way mean that.
As I read the decision, it says that the Federal government cannot "issue direct orders to the governments of the States." They cited an earlier decision, in which the Court struck down a federal law requiring state and local officials to conduct firearm background checks. The Court differentiated between Congress regulating, in which case it assumes responsibility for what it has done, to ordering the states to regulate, in which responsibility is "blurred." It also prevents the Federal government from shifting the cost of regulation to the states.
[S]tate legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.
It can certainly be argued that federal attempts to require states to enforce federal immigration laws would be covered under this ruling for the exact same reason (in fact, this case would seem to be identical to the firearm background check law). However, a state sanctuary law cannot preempt federal immigration law.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#8 Post by Bob78164 » Mon May 14, 2018 5:19 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.
Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
It does not in any way mean that.
I think it does. Particularly in conjunction with the majority opinion invalidating the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was a direct order to the States, but because it was an "offer they couldn't refuse," I think that the majority is going to be very sympathetic to the position that States cannot be compelled or financially coerced into using state resources to enforce federal immigration policy. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#9 Post by BackInTex » Mon May 14, 2018 6:07 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.
It does not in any way mean that.
I think it does. Particularly in conjunction with the majority opinion invalidating the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was a direct order to the States, but because it was an "offer they couldn't refuse," I think that the majority is going to be very sympathetic to the position that States cannot be compelled or financially coerced into using state resources to enforce federal immigration policy. --Bob
If so, then RIP the Department of Education. Among others
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#10 Post by Bob78164 » Mon May 14, 2018 6:11 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
It does not in any way mean that.
I think it does. Particularly in conjunction with the majority opinion invalidating the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was a direct order to the States, but because it was an "offer they couldn't refuse," I think that the majority is going to be very sympathetic to the position that States cannot be compelled or financially coerced into using state resources to enforce federal immigration policy. --Bob
If so, then RIP the Department of Education. Among others
Not at all. The federal government is entitled to spend federal dollars to accomplish federal goals. It can even impose conditions on the receipt of federal dollars that are reasonably related to the accomplishment of those goals. What it can't do is compel or coerce the States to spend state dollars to accomplish federal goals. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

lilclyde54
Posts: 1988
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: The Deep South

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#11 Post by lilclyde54 » Mon May 14, 2018 6:33 pm

Wow, it took all of three posts to turn a discussion about sports gambling into a political argument. I have mixed feelings about the ruling because I have 4-5 friends of mine who have unauthorized bookie operations here who will have their businesses hurt when the casinos in our state start taking sports bets but I am glad overall for the ruling because I won't have to travel to Las Vegas to make futures bets and similar things that our local bookies refuse to book like golf, car racing, etc. Our town is far enough away from our MS casinos that very few of of my friend's regular customers will drive a couple of hours to place a legal bet when they can pretty much bet on any of the major sports (NCAA football, basketball, NFL, NBA, MLB) with the same odds here at home. FWIW- Our legislature anticipated this judgement and passed legislation this spring allowing our casinos to implement sports betting as soon as a favorable judgement came thru. Our sports books have already been planned and should be in business very shortly.
I felt the change

Time meant nothing and never would again

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14891
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Fed Sports Gambling Ban

#12 Post by Beebs52 » Mon May 14, 2018 6:45 pm

lilclyde54 wrote:Wow, it took all of three posts to turn a discussion about sports gambling into a political argument. I have mixed feelings about the ruling because I have 4-5 friends of mine who have unauthorized bookie operations here who will have their businesses hurt when the casinos in our state start taking sports bets but I am glad overall for the ruling because I won't have to travel to Las Vegas to make futures bets and similar things that our local bookies refuse to book like golf, car racing, etc. Our town is far enough away from our MS casinos that very few of of my friend's regular customers will drive a couple of hours to place a legal bet when they can pretty much bet on any of the major sports (NCAA football, basketball, NFL, NBA, MLB) with the same odds here at home. FWIW- Our legislature anticipated this judgement and passed legislation this spring allowing our casinos to implement sports betting as soon as a favorable judgement came thru. Our sports books have already been planned and should be in business very shortly.
Hee hee. You expect peeps to keep on task?
Well, then

Post Reply