News Article: States are free to authorize sports betting, Supreme Court rules

Its On A Slab · May 14, 2018

This should be a boon to people who bet on the WNBA.

Tidewater · May 14, 2018

The thing that interests me is not that the federal judiciary authorized states to engage in sports gambling, but that a federal court had the temerity to discuss whether the states had the authority or not.
The question is whether the Constitution authorizes the federal government (in any of its branches) to have any opinion on the question at all.
The Constitution of the United States does not delegate to any federal agency the power to have any opinion whatsoever on the question (much less an incorrect one). Shame on the court for taking the question at all.
Of course, such reasoning is lost on the federal bench. More's the pity.

Elefantman · May 14, 2018

cbi1972 said:
Not sure what you were going for, but that about sums up the objection to craft beer that finally became legal in Alabama, but which is still burdened with onerous regulation on distribution.

This is a good movie that explains how the archaic beer distribution laws that were created after prohibition have allowed the big three AB, Coors and Miller to control most of the beer market in the US. Worth the watch to see how the game is rigged against the craft beer brewers.

4Q Basket Case · May 15, 2018

Tidewater said:
The thing that interests me is not that the federal judiciary authorized states to engage in sports gambling, but that a federal court had the temerity to discuss whether the states had the authority or not.
The question is whether the Constitution authorizes the federal government (in any of its branches) to have any opinion on the question at all.
The Constitution of the United States does not delegate to any federal agency the power to have any opinion whatsoever on the question (much less an incorrect one). Shame on the court for taking the question at all.
Of course, such reasoning is lost on the federal bench. More's the pity.

Welł, SCOTUS has ticked me off again.

Not with the ruling (which I agree with), but with the logic. Or, rather, why the logic isn't applied in a zillion other cases.

So it's up to the states to regulate gambling. I'm good with that concept, concerns around the Alabama legislature notwithstanding.

But why stop there? Why is it not up to the states to regulate consumer banking, environmental issues, or labor, or guns, or health insurance, or marijuana or other intoxicating drugs, or any of the countless other things the Feds have co-opted?

What ticks me off is not this ruling. It's the arbitrary application of a constitutional principle that should be universal. Only when it is in direct conflict with another constitutional principle should it be limited, and even then only to the extent necessary to balance the competing provisions.

Essentially, SCOTUS is saying, "States' rights don't mean squat unless the issue at hand is something we don't want to deal with. In which case it's your problem, not ours.

But stand by...when we decide to give a hoot, we'll let you benighted little people know, and confiscate that silly little states' rights thing quicker than you can say, "Earl Warren."

uafanataum · May 15, 2018

4Q Basket Case said:
Welł, SCOTUS has ticked me off again.

Not with the ruling (which I agree with), but with the logic. Or, rather, why the logic isn't applied in a zillion other cases.

So it's up to the states to regulate gambling. I'm good with that concept, concerns around the Alabama legislature notwithstanding.

But why stop there? Why is it not up to the states to regulate consumer banking, environmental issues, or labor, or guns, or health insurance, or marijuana or other intoxicating drugs, or any of the countless other things the Feds have co-opted?

What ticks me off is not this ruling. It's the arbitrary application of a constitutional principle that should be universal. Only when it is in direct conflict with another constitutional principle should it be limited, and even then only to the extent necessary to balance the competing provisions.

Essentially, SCOTUS is saying, "States' rights don't mean squat unless the issue at hand is something we don't want to deal with. In which case it's your problem, not ours.

But stand by...when we decide to give a hoot, we'll let you benighted little people know, and confiscate that silly little states' rights thing quicker than you can say, "Earl Warren."

I would say that some on your list do not belong on your list. Gun control for one should not be left up to the states. The second ammendment does not allow either the state or federal government to regulate either very much. Marijuana on the other hand I think is not protected under the constitution nor does it fall under the purview of the federal government therefore it is up to the states. I would say that consumer banking cannot be properly regulated by states and only the federal government is capable of regulating it so it falls under them. Basically some stuff you mentioned the supreme court should leave up to the states, some the Fed, and some the constitution prohibits either from interfering with. So the supreme court must make these decisions on a case by case basis.

Search

News Article: States are free to authorize sports betting, Supreme Court rules

Its On A Slab

All-SEC

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

Elefantman

Hall of Fame

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator

uafanataum

All-American

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!