- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme court rules national ban on sports betting is illegal
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:54 am to HailToTheChiz
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:54 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Will be awesome
Agreed. I'm wondering when to pull my money out of Bovada.
0
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:54 am to FalseProphet
Help a non lawyer out:
Why does the opinion of the dissenters matter?
Why does the opinion of the dissenters matter?
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:54 am to teke184
good lord when will Ginsberg die
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:56 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Why does the opinion of the dissenters matter?
Doesn't really other than provide a guide as to their thought process and perhaps conflicting laws on the books
Can be used persuasively
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:56 am to Strannix
My money is “after a crushing defeat of Dem Senate candidates in November 2018.”
At that point she has to hang on for another 2 years minimum and depending on the composition of the Senate the Dems can’t pass another pseudo-communist through.
At that point she has to hang on for another 2 years minimum and depending on the composition of the Senate the Dems can’t pass another pseudo-communist through.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 9:59 am to FalseProphet
Thomas taking swipes at Wickard (although he doesn't name it, that's what it amounts to).
This is a far cry from Wickard which found that any transaction -that could have an effect on interstate commerce -even one so small that its effect is not measurable- was considered to be under Congressional oversight per the Interstate Commerce Clause.
States Rights!
quote:
Unlike the dissent, I do “doubt” that Congress can prohibit sports gambling that does not cross state lines. Post, at 2 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.); see License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 470–471 (1867) (holding that Congress has “no power” to regulate “the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States,” including the intrastate sale of lottery tickets);
This is a far cry from Wickard which found that any transaction -that could have an effect on interstate commerce -even one so small that its effect is not measurable- was considered to be under Congressional oversight per the Interstate Commerce Clause.
States Rights! This post was edited on 5/14/18 at 10:04 am
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:07 am to Janky
quote:
So, does this give us any kind of indication on how they may rule on other cases or is everything independent?
None whatsoever. It’s just interesting that Kagan didn’t side with Ginsburg or Breyer. Kennedy typically (though not always) sides with whichever one increases individual liberty (federalism be damned). In this case, federalism and liberty were on the same side, so Kennedy swung conservative (if you’re going to define conservative as less federal control and more states rights). Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were always going to side with the states, and Roberts usually (but not always) does too.
This post was edited on 5/14/18 at 10:10 am
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:12 am to flyAU
My money, my choice.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:13 am to i am dan
this is a good ruling and a strike at the heart of organized crime.
Good job supremes.
Good job supremes.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:15 am to kingbob
quote:
It’s just interesting that Kagan didn’t side with Ginsburg or Breyer.
Of the left wing wackos, I actually find Kagan to be the most reasonable and well thought out. She's far left but I actually respect her a bit.
Sotamayor is possibly the worst SCJ in history, and that is saying something.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:17 am to Fun Bunch
Let’s not lower the bar too much for the Wise Latina.
I think Abe Fortas, LBJ’s crony, still tops the list between leaking deliberations to him and having a lot of questionable “legal fees” that caused his resignation from the court.
I think Abe Fortas, LBJ’s crony, still tops the list between leaking deliberations to him and having a lot of questionable “legal fees” that caused his resignation from the court.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:18 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Help a non lawyer out:
Why does the opinion of the dissenters matter?
It doesn't.
Just the legal opinions of those that voted against the decision.
This post was edited on 5/14/18 at 10:18 am
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:18 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Mississippi will legalize and start making a pile of money. When Louisiana legislators see that happening they'll legalize.
Correction, Louisiana will spend the next 15 year doing studies to the best possible way to utilize sports betting to improve the schools system and in the end no one will profit except the frickers doing the multi million dollar studies.
As usual.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:19 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Sotamayor is possibly the worst SCJ in history, and that is saying something.
Especially when she's sitting on the court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The only way I can say Sotomayor is "worse" than RBG is that she's younger and can do more damage. But, all other things being equal, that's 2 pretty bad SCOTUS justices right there. I respect Kagan and Breyer, even though I rarely agree with them.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:21 am to flyAU
But muh bible says betting is immoral
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:22 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Why does the opinion of the dissenters matter?
Doesn't, but there are often some highly persuasive arguments in there - some of the most persuasive in Court history - in particular, Byron White's dissent in Roe v. Wade (White was very liberal except on this issue) is particularly good.
To quote George Pugh (LSU law professor and an internationally recognized jurist on evidence law), "Well, of course he's persuasive - he lost - that's all he's got left, persuasiveness."
This post was edited on 5/14/18 at 10:25 am
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:24 am to Bard
quote:
This is a far cry from Wickard which found that any transaction -that could have an effect on interstate commerce -even one so small that its effect is not measurable- was considered to be under Congressional oversight per the Interstate Commerce Clause.
I think it's more a swipe at Gonzales v. Raich, which is what Ginsburg relies on for that point. Wickard and Raich are both abominations.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:27 am to FalseProphet
quote:
This is a far cry from Wickard
quote:
I think it's more a swipe at Gonzales v. Raich
tomato tomato
and yeah Thomas has been shitting on the post-Wickard CC interpretation since, basically forever
here's a part of his dissent in Gonzalez
quote:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States."
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:27 am to brian_wilson
quote:
a strike at the heart of organized crime.
For this reason alone, this should have been done years ago. Prohibition never works.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 10:28 am to TheHarahanian
quote:
Mississippi will legalize and start making a pile of money. When Louisiana legislators see that happening they'll legalize.
Mississippi has already paved the way with the passing of the fantasy sports bill signed by Gov Bryant in '17. It will allow casino sports betting. I'm reading that some casinos could have it up in running in 45 days.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News