Posted on 05/14/2018 7:47:50 AM PDT by Leaning Right
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal law that bars gambling on football, basketball, baseball and other sports in most states, giving states the go-ahead to legalize betting on sports.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The 1992 law barred state-authorized sports gambling with some exceptions. It made Nevada the only state where a person could wager on the results of a single game.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.yahoo.com ...
Some how I think Harry Reid had a lot to do with that Act.........
That's why I don't gamble at all, concluding that if God wants to send me some money, He certainly knows both how to do it and where to find me.
‘The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution.’
As is ALL matters not addressed in the Constitution, the States have the right to decide what goes and what doesn’t.
Absolutely. It was the right call, no doubt. Surprised it had to go to this level.
Breyer agreed with the majority regarding the 10th Amendment, but felt the offending provisions were severable from the rest of PAPSA.
Read Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion. He shows why the Commerce Clause should not be interpreted to allow Congress to ban sports betting. I think he’s the smartest Justice on the Court and the one who is most faithful to the Constitution.
Better call Saul!
Thanks. Such a multifaceted split is reminiscent of Bush v. Gore, in which seven justices found the Florida Supreme Court’s decision flawed but only five agreed on the proper remedy.
Hookers are next. Prostitutes will be able to come out of the closet in all 50 states. No longer will prostitution only be allowed in Nevada and congress.
That’s a good question. I’ve seen it both ways in stories today, but what I didn’t see was any mention of how the justices voted so I went to the source. I don’t recall seeing a tally there, but I didn’t look all that closely, either.
I could look, but my memory is that B v. G was much more fractured than the present case, with three justices being joined by one and another and two liberals in rejecting the Florida court, although only five agreed on the remedy. But that's all you need.
“this isn’t a morals issue as much as it is a money issue.”
Completely agree. But the laws that are in place are based upon morals and not legalities. Roe is a perfect example. He is not still banned from the sport because of his gambling in my mind. He is there because he lied about it for many years and embarrassed the sport. He was way too valuable a commodity in the game to lower its standards. And the unfortunate end is that it set a standard of overkill with the athletes coming in.
They are ignored now for some of the conduct they have performed that years ago would have been enough to be suspended from the public eye if for no other reason than protecting the sport from a fan scrutiny that would hammer profits. Look what the knee routine has done for pro football profits. But the media has protected sports from the public. And anyone who thinks these people are being paid tremendous amounts of money to do a moderate job on the field for just their play, is greatly mistaken. They are giving up their privacy and family for the money. Whether they like it or not, they are role models. And the actions of thug athletes has set a new standard with our youth. And it ain’t higher.
rwood
That will never happen. If prostitution became legal, American women would have to start behaving themselves again; they will always vote as a block against it.
Trying to overcome business actions at this level with religion in today’s society as the media and politicians have presented religion as evil, won’t make a dent in it. Religion is not even close to the guiding factor it was 100 years ago. Now it is a tool used by many to destroy or block people from it so they are helpless by considering them a fanatic or a liar trying to use political means to accomplish a goal rather than just being truthful. And everything that is said or done becomes dysfunctional. Until our leaders put their foot down and determine it is not a first amendment right to lie and try to harm people by use of the media, it is going to continue and our youth are going to buy it. So tomorrow they will find something else to print to perpetuate it.
rwood
If people filter their ideas of God through politicians and media, faith is already lost.
One can also participate in business ventures whose purpose is to do something constructive and try to earn a profit on it. Hence the stock market (at least in principle), and bonds.
Would I refuse benevolence from a lottery winner though? No.
Jesus specifically endorsed that in his parables.
Not always to be taken literally, like the field with a literal pearl in it (general ethics is that not telling the owner is unconscientious).
There is a case working through the ninth circuit on that issue right now. I expect that they will rule that states can’t outlaw two consenting adults exchanging money for sex. Then it will eventually work it’s way to the Supreme Court.
An argument can be made that taking sexual morality matters (with the fig leaf of consent) out of state hands leaves religious faith as the sole refuge from madness in the sexual sphere, and thus making that faith more attractive to sin-abused aching hearts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.