Supreme Court strikes down federal anti-sports gambling law

[WhawhaWhat]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/polit...urt/index.html

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for states to legalize sports betting, striking down a 1992 federal law that had prohibited most states from authorizing sports betting.

The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting the federal government from controlling state policy. It unconstitutionally required states to prohibit sports betting under their own laws.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

I'm betting the over on the Chiefs as soon as possible.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

That would be ok by me.

So you're totally fine with health care workers being able to withhold treatment in emergent situations?

Let's say someone steps out in the crosswalk a second too early and gets hit. Do we deny them treatment, too? What about the kid of the dumbass too stupid/lazy to buy a car seat who gets ejected or has an airbag break their orbital sockets? Tough shit for that one?

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

So you're totally fine with health care workers being able to withhold treatment in emergent situations?

Let's say someone steps out in the crosswalk a second too early and gets hit. Do we deny them treatment, too? What about the kid of the dumbass too stupid/lazy to buy a car seat who gets ejected or has an airbag break their orbital sockets? Tough shit for that one?

Shit happens.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Paging weed.... weed, please pick up. Doctor Legal Weed.

Hopefully that is next or at least it should be.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

I think that you're comparing apples to oranges now. The right to life is a lot different than being forced to wear a seatbelt.

No, not really.

[Why Not?]

Originally Posted by JakeF

How big of a hit will Las Vegas take because of this?

None. Vegas will always be Vegas.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

That law was passed because of insurance companies as well as the burden to long and short term disability. It wemt against a persons right of choice.
If the governmemt did it for safety and health concerns then tobacco and alcohol would also be illegal.

Sent from my SM-S906L using Tapatalk

I would argue that reckless behavior of others can be a direct cause in what causes my health insurance and health costs to go up.

Incentivizing safe behavior is beneficial to everyone's right of choice. Because when costs go up, fewer people have the choice to take advantage of health care.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

I would argue that reckless behavior of others can be a direct cause in what causes my health insurance and health costs to go up.

Incentivizing safe behavior is beneficial to everyone's right of choice. Because when costs go up, fewer people have the choice to take advantage of health care.

Though we're relying on the promise of similar outcomes, penalizing unsafe behavior is not the same thing as incentivizing safe behavior.

If the intent is to incentivize safe behavior, the federal government owes me quite a few chocolate chip cookies.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Though we're relying on the promise of similar outcomes, penalizing unsafe behavior is not the same thing as incentivizing safe behavior.

If the intent is to incentivize safe behavior, the federal government owes me quite a few chocolate chip cookies.

Fair, but I'd argue the positive incentive comes in the cheaper costs afforded to everyone in health care, the easier access to medical professionals, and the cheaper rates of auto insurance as a result of safer behavior.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

I would argue that reckless behavior of others can be a direct cause in what causes my health insurance and health costs to go up.

Incentivizing safe behavior is beneficial to everyone's right of choice. Because when costs go up, fewer people have the choice to take advantage of health care.

Yeah.

It's similar to obesity and the health care costs of simply unhealthy diets and such.

Fastest way to drop health care costs.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Fair, but I'd argue the positive incentive comes in the cheaper costs afforded to everyone in health care, the easier access to medical professionals, and the cheaper rates of auto insurance as a result of safer behavior.

Certainly those are among the intended outcomes. I'd guess, though, that the law itself promises none of those things. What it promises is a financial penalty. I was just suggesting that part of the wording of your argument was resting on a slightly shifty foundation.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

I would argue that reckless behavior of others can be a direct cause in what causes my health insurance and health costs to go up.

Incentivizing safe behavior is beneficial to everyone's right of choice. Because when costs go up, fewer people have the choice to take advantage of health care.

So when they outlaw beer, and soda and sugar and bratwurst and pizza and a million other things, you should be fine with it.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

So when they outlaw beer, and soda and sugar and bratwurst and pizza and a million other things, you should be fine with it.

I think there’s a clear difference between incentives and prohibition.

[Hamwallet]

Can we please get Arthur Bryant’s back at ameristar casino if this happens. Brisket and college football betting. Holy **** boys!

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

I think there’s a clear difference between incentives and prohibition.

You mean like seatbelts?

[frozenchief]

This was a weird law and the decision does not quite mean what many people think it means.

To understand the decision, you need to understand how the Supreme Court works. They are not supposed to look at results but more at the process and the reasoning behind laws. As an example, say a state bans revenge porn. Bans on speech are strictly examined so if this ban would cover something other than revenge porn, the law would likely be struck down. If the Supreme Court struck down the law, headlines would be something like, “Supreme Court legalizes revenge porn,” which really is not the case. The Supreme Court just found that the law against revenge porn was not drafted well and it prohibited otherwise constitutionally protected speech.

In this case, Congress prohibited the States from allowing sports betting. Note that Congress itself did not ban sports betting per se (see below). Congress just prohibited States from doing so. The constitution gives Congress limited and specifically defined powers (it’s supposed to, anyway). If the Constitution does not specifically grant the power to Congress, Congress does not have the right to exercise that power. As one example, to regulate any commercial activity, the activity must be inter-state, that is, it must affect commerce between the states. This has been read quite broadly but it still has teeth sometimes.

Let me give an example of how this works. Congress has outlawed carjacking. Why? I don’t know. This is already a state crime and there is no real reason to make it a federal crime. But to be a federal crime, the car must move in interstate commerce. About 20 years ago, I was living in Nashville and a friend of mine was representing someone charged with federal carjacking. The car was a Saturn, manufactured and sold in Tennessee. He moved to dismiss the charges since the car had not traveled in interstate commerce. The federal case was dismissed but his client was convicted in state court. These procedural rules are important to lawyers and especially the Supreme Court but the subtlety of these rules is frequently lost on the media or the general public.

So as part of Congress’ limited authority, and because Congress and state legislatures govern different spheres of activity, Congress cannot tell state legislatures what they can and cannot regulate. In the drug arena, then, Congress can prohibit drug trafficking but Congress cannot command any state to outlaw drug trafficking. And Congress can tie receipt of federal money to passing certain laws because states can always turn down federal money. So Congress can make receipt of certain highway funds contingent upon states enacting a 21 year old drinking age and that is constitutional but Congress cannot write a law that requires a state to enact a drinking age of 21.

Given that background, Congress’ attempt to prohibit states from authorizing sports betting failed. Congress tried to ban sports betting in a way that it couldn’t do. Congress has prohibited transporting gambling devices (15 USC §§ 1171-1181) and the use of certain funds in online betting (31 USC 5361-5367) and certain gambling activities (18 USC 1955, covered as part of racketeering laws – can’t have an illegal gambling operation of more than 5 people that makes a certain amount of money). I’m sure there are others but those are the ones I know about off hand. I’ve represented people charged with racketeering but not the transporting gambling devices or use of certain funds derived from online gambling.

Could Congress pass a law that prohibited sports betting? Under our current legal framework, I am sure that Congress could pass such a law. It would wipe out Vegas’ sports books and any state that tried to start a similar system. The political will for that type of law, though, has likely passed. Nowadays, gambling pools for March Madness or the Super Bowl or some other sporting event are quite common and viewed as harmless. Allowing corporations to have Nevada gambling licenses really opened up the Nevada casinos and chased the Mafia out of Vegas (no, I don’t think they’ve all gone but so much of the gaming industry is above-board now that most illegal gambling operations are not seen by the general public) so there is not likely to be a huge push for these laws.

But the headline for this post is correct. The Supreme Court struck down laws but the Supreme Court did not legalize sports betting. The Supreme Court determined that the way Congress sought to prohibit sports betting was unconstitutional. That is a very big difference in legal terms.