Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court allows sports betting across the country [View all]unblock
(56,219 posts)21. in the scheme of things, this seems to be a pretty minor decision.
to the extent that it will (possibly temporarily) allow legalized sports betting in more states, i guess that's something if you're into that.
but it doesn't prevent congress from banning sports betting at the federal level, they just made what the majority is effectively calling a technical error by explicitly ordering states not to contradict federal law. but they could just pass the same law without those offending parts of the statute, and then sports betting is right back to being banned again.
i don't know what the politics of this matter is like these days, so i don't know if congress is likely to simply revise this law or not.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
P. S.: Republicans do not refer to it as "gambling." They call it "gaming." NT
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2018
#1
the ruling had next to nothing to do with the wisdom of gambling or its legal status
unblock
May 2018
#8
It's open, simulcast betting was never stopped - dogs, horses, bingo are 'games of skill.'
yallerdawg
May 2018
#39
I can't wait for Bama to have another Ray Perkins experience after Saban retires.
Calista241
May 2018
#37
This is starting to look like the dystopian "Biff's World" in "Back to the Future".
lagomorph777
May 2018
#49
thanks. my read is that breyer's dissent rests solely on the severability argument, while ginsburg
unblock
May 2018
#12
Well as Ginsburg writes: "The Court wields an ax ... instead of using a scalpel"
PoliticAverse
May 2018
#15
right -- all 3 dissenters agreed with the severability argument, only two agreed that
unblock
May 2018
#19
"but they could just pass the same law without those offending parts of the statute"
BumRushDaShow
May 2018
#31
The problem with the law was it forced state governments to take certain actions.
PoliticAverse
May 2018
#6
this is the core of rgb's dissent. the federal government *did* ban sports betting
unblock
May 2018
#13
i would think that would be the stronger constitutional argument, but that doesn't appear
unblock
May 2018
#22
It's convoluted, but maybe he was determined to avoid a partial repeal scenario
BeyondGeography
May 2018
#28
I believe there will be more opinions announced. The went until late June last year...
PoliticAverse
May 2018
#20
this decision doesn't legalize marijuana, nor does it prevent a federal ban on sports betting.
unblock
May 2018
#33
By this logic the Federal government won't be allowed to ban or regulate anything
bucolic_frolic
May 2018
#34
No, this affirms that the Federal government can't force states to ban something
PoliticAverse
May 2018
#38