These clueless right wingers have no clue about Adelson and how his campaign money dictates things. They just get sucked into every god dam excuse someone with an agenda feeds these dopes. On another note these leagues want a cut and until they get it like they do in Vegas, this is never gonna happen. All the taxes on this and the leagues cut makes this a worthless subject because if it passed, the juice will be incredible. If they can find a way to eliminate the leagues cut this would be a huge profit benefit for a lot of cities. There lies the problem. Adelson and the leagues lobby.
-
Comment -
Even if it passes New Jersey is only going to be the race tracks which are not close to lots and lots of people
Anyone from New York has to go over the bridge to get there not far but probably $20 when you add it all up and tolls and gasComment -
Being that way peeps in new york will stay local or online. Proly jersey also. There needs to be accessible markets to make a profit. (So proly intrastate mobile) The hard rock casino in tulsa is about 20 mins away from my job. Thats accesible. But they really need to go mobile if this is legalized.Comment -
Same thing not too many across the stateComment -
No-one KNOWS on this website how the Supreme Court will rule. But most legal opinions are that if New Jersey wins, other states that approve sports gambling within their state with "racetracks and casinos" will be allowed the same as New Jersey. Very few if any believes the Supreme Court will define the case so narrowly as to only apply to New Jersey. Wait and See.Comment -
One of Vegas Bookmakers say the yes is -160
Vacarro I believe South PointComment -
It's not a law before Congress hoping to "pass." What NJ wants it to overturn the current law, PASPA.
NJ passed their law to allow sports gambling at only racetracks because they believed that law would have the least chance of being struck down in federal courts. It got struck down anyway. If NJ succeeds in overturning PASPA, there will be no restrictions on what states can do and I have no doubt NJ will reintroduce legislation legalizing sports gambling and will do so in a manner that permits it everywhere in-state.Comment -
New Jersey could become the Mecca of sports betting eventually
Let's not forget there are much much more money in New Jersey then Las VegasComment -
Absolutely nobody believes that the USSC will restrict it only to NJ. That would defeat the whole point of overturning the bill.
NJ is arguing PASPA is unconstitutional because the federal government treats the states differently in that bill. PASPA made sports gambling illegal for 46 states and a states-rights choice for the other 4. If NJ wins and PASPA is overturned, then sports gambling becomes an unrestricted states-rights issue for all 50 states. Every state can do what they want with no restrictions from the federal government.
Then there is the "doomsday" scenario where the USSC declares the bill is perfectly fine, but the 4-state carve out is unconstitutional, so they keep the bill in place but get rid of the carve-out. This would result in sports gambling being illegal everywhere, including Nevada.Comment -
There are already a helluva lot of casinos in the "Bible Belt" states. I have no doubt Mississippi and Louisiana would allow sports gambling. Probably not Texas since they don't have any casinos. Probably not NC, and I would put KY and TN as "maybe".
NY and PA would definitely allow it eventually. CT and DE would do so immediately. So NJ would be surrounded by states that allowed it.Comment -
Utah will be a Certain NO!
Not sure about Hawaii.Comment -
I'm glad they took it. What is the lower court reasoning that sports gambling is OK in a few states but not OK in others?
Judge: "It is my decision that because the leagues are upset that people bet on their games, I grant that their taking offense to it, makes it [PAPSA] constitutional. I don't want to address at this time why they have cut deals with other businesses in order to make money on daily fantasy sports, which are OK and do not constitute risking money to win more money. Wait, sorry, that's gambling too ... I hope you didn't read this entire decision, I thought long sentences and weird grammatical constructions would have thrown you off the trail by now."
Comment -
I hope it passes
I might stay in NJ thenComment -
[QUOTE=StackinGreen;27075371]I'm glad they took it. What is the lower court reasoning that sports gambling is OK in a few states but not OK in others?
Judge: "It is my decision that because the leagues are upset that people bet on their games, I grant that their taking offense to it, makes it [PAPSA] constitutional. I don't want to address at this time why they have cut deals with other businesses in order to make money on daily fantasy sports, which are OK and do not constitute risking money to win more money. Wait, sorry, that's gambling too ... I hope you didn't read this entire decision, I thought long sentences and weird grammatical constructions would have thrown you off the trail by now."
[/QUO
The previous federal courts (I think and not 100% certain) were 3 judge panels... And again, I'm not (100% sure), I think the last vote was 2 to 1. The Supreme Court may be a divided ruling also, but if NJ loses, hope it's not 5-4. Since someone here says Vegas made it -160 in their favor, which I'm not sure exactly how the prop reads, sounds like the betting folks give the nod to a NJ win .Comment -
NJ argued two different cases before federal court and lost both.I'm glad they took it. What is the lower court reasoning that sports gambling is OK in a few states but not OK in others?
Judge: "It is my decision that because the leagues are upset that people bet on their games, I grant that their taking offense to it, makes it [PAPSA] constitutional. I don't want to address at this time why they have cut deals with other businesses in order to make money on daily fantasy sports, which are OK and do not constitute risking money to win more money. Wait, sorry, that's gambling too ... I hope you didn't read this entire decision, I thought long sentences and weird grammatical constructions would have thrown you off the trail by now."
1) The first time they argued that PASPA is unconstitutional because it treats states differently. They lost because equal sovereignty rules do not apply to federal laws enacted under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I disagreed vehemently with the court's reasoning. NJ appealed to the USSC, who refused to hear the case.
2) The second time they argued PASPA is unconstitutional focused on the federal government's anti-commandeering rules. There are things that the federal government cannot force the states to do. There are limits to the federal government saying "Hey, states, we are making a law but making YOU enforce it. Good luck!" They lost, and I actually agree with the logic by which they lost this case. (I never thought they would win this second try)
Here's the irony: Even though, IMHO, the first argument is the stronger case, the USSC didn't hear NJ's appeal. The second argument is, IMHO, the weaker case. BUT, when NJ appealed the 2nd case to the USSC, this time they agreed to hear it.
So now that the law is going to the USSC, everything is on table. The USSC can make a ruling based on *either* of the above arguments and many people, including myself, believe it is the first argument which is the stronger play, especially with the conservative makeup of the court (conservatives tend to favor states' rights).Comment -
Isn't the dumber eventuality that --- like my posts earlier on a Banana Republic which has made illegal marijuana federally for every state, yet has an executive branch (Obama) that actively told its officers to NOT enforce the law --- NJ just goes ahead and says, so what PASPA, we're doing it anyway (like states and Marijuana)? See what can happen when you don't impeach someone who does not follow the Constitution? You set up a situation in which law is TEMPORAL, or worseComment -
I am going to Trenton next week
To push for it to passComment -
That is the NJ "nuclear option" which they have threatened to do. They seem content to not engage the "nuclear option" until after all the Courts rule, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
At that point, it becomes up to Donald Trump whether or not he is going to enforce federal law in this regard. To the best of my knowledge, he has not enforced federal drug laws but Lord only knows what he would do here.Comment -
This is very complicated
We need it passedComment -
What we need is for the USSC to overturn PASPA. IF that happens, there will be gambling in NJ by the weekend after the USSC's ruling.
And if PASPA gets completely overturned, I guarantee NJ doesn't limit sports betting to racetracks. Every hotel/casino on the Boardwalk will have their own book.Comment -
Offshore will still be king. Go to Vegas and compare every bet you make with the big boys (Bookmaker, Heritage, 5Dimes) and you will make 90%+ of your bets offshore. Better lines, less juice, more sports to bet, more props.Comment -
I look at some of the rulings here and they are just breathtakingly silly. I wouldn't even call them "stupid" because they just ... don't make sense. In the anti-commandeering case, the dissenter rightly says that the majority opinion talks about not "forcing" states to do things, which by definition prohibitions of XYZ product of course fall into because you are not allowing them to take action in the first place! Again, which is fine, if you didn't just let others do whatever they want (Nevada) with regard to sovereignty.
I don't know how ignoring the fact that you deal with states completely differently according to the law is not immediately brought up by any jurist, it's just so glaringly obvious and silly. This brainless and global use of the "Commerce Clause" to justify every federal government intrusion on States rights is crazy.
How does the "Commerce Clause" trump the Tenth Amendment? The 10th is clear, if not listed, it's the States prerogative. That is cut and dry. I haven't seen 1 jurist to this day (who is in favor of using Commerce Clause carte blanche) tell me where the CC starts and where it ends. A clause trumps an entire amendment in the bill of rights as well --- when the Amendment itself is crystal clear and the clause is not?
That's just f'n weird. Banana, as I've said.Comment -
Doubt it. You're assuming that states will try to be as competitive as offshore...they won't. Vegas hasn't, other states sure won't. They don't have to. You fly to Vegas to party and gamble. The state you are in is saving you the airfare and hotel $. They are going to get it back with poorer juice. Offshore is the bar. They don't have to change anything.Comment -
States will charge -120 On Wagers !!!Comment
