- 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 11:41 am to KiwiHead
Posted on 5/14/18 at 11:41 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Hate to tell ya, but all governments have a streak of authoritarianism in them and ours is no different.
Sure.
quote:
Legally i's the right decision, but societally and morally, it's not all that affirming.
Because creating major black markets loaded with violence is morally preferably to having an incredible small percentage of people who can't control their behavior in a legal and regulated system.
It's why the 18th Amendment worked so well.
ETA: This obviously only lifts the ban on state regulated systems. The individual states are still free to prohibit this action. Louisiana seems hell bent on losing money, jobs, and population to Mississippi.
This post was edited on 5/14/18 at 11:49 am
0
Posted on 5/14/18 at 11:42 am to MrLSU
quote:
Louisiana is going to go all in on Sports Betting!!!
More tax revenue going to the wrong places.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 11:53 am to KiwiHead
The idiot who gets his house foreclosed on b/c he has a gambling addiction isn't my problem, nor is it the problem of the state.
In fact, it's an opportunity for those who are prudent and patient with their liquidity to scoop up their property for pennies on the dollar.
The kids will be sad, but it will be a great lesson to them to not gamble, like their weak, degenerate parents did.
In fact, it's an opportunity for those who are prudent and patient with their liquidity to scoop up their property for pennies on the dollar.
The kids will be sad, but it will be a great lesson to them to not gamble, like their weak, degenerate parents did.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:06 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Ginsburg dissent revolves around Commerce Clause precedent as Alito's opinion is steeped in federalism and makes even further cuts into the "incidental effect" power of the Commerce Clause.
Good day for America
Yup.
Poor liberals don't know whether to shite or go blind on stuff like this. They know that intuitively, liberals SAY they hate the whole "protect me from my bad morality" govt approach...........but, they still want to keep their govt as their daddy........so.......
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:32 pm to teke184
quote:
She can’t redraft this shite on the fly because she wants to pretend severability exists.
She’s layindg the ground work for Obamacare challenge 2.0. Under Sibelius, the mandate is unconstitutional if it is not a tax.
The tax cuts removed the mandate’s tax penalty provisions. Therefore the mandate itself will (or rather, should) not stand. On top of that it’s the ACA’s only enforcement mechanism. The law can’t stand without it, and Congress never meant for it to be enacted without a mandate. It’s fundamental to the ACA’s operation.
RBG is laying her support down to argue that the mandate is severable from Obamacare, to try and prevent the court from ruling the whole ACA unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 5/14/18 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 5/14/18 at 12:40 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
RBG is laying her support down to argue that the mandate is severable from Obamacare, to try and prevent the court from ruling the whole ACA unconstitutional.
I submit that RBG isn't doing jack shite. I submit that rigth now, RBG is the closest thing to this we've ever seen in real life
Posted on 5/14/18 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
Just looked up Gonzales and I am a bit disappointed (but not all that shocked) to see Scalia sided with the majority on this. Scalia's use of Necessary and Proper was a reach.
Thomas' dissent is the true essence of both cases for me (especially when the reason for Scalia's dissent as added in). If the threshold needing to met is that it "might" have some effect on interstate commerce at some point, then there is literally no transaction Congress should not have purview over.
Thomas' dissent is the true essence of both cases for me (especially when the reason for Scalia's dissent as added in). If the threshold needing to met is that it "might" have some effect on interstate commerce at some point, then there is literally no transaction Congress should not have purview over.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 2:14 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
It'll be interesting to see what this does for the black market of gambling.
There's a benefit to still playing the black market; to avoid paying taxes.
Not sure of the amount but over a certain amount of winnings on a single bet in a LV Sports Book is reported to the IRS.
Overall though, on-line betting will make it almost too easy to place bets for us. If we have the funds to back them up.
Posted on 5/14/18 at 2:33 pm to flyAU
quote:
States are able to do as they wish.
How it's supposed to be
Posted on 5/14/18 at 3:57 pm to flyAU
Now can we legalize prostitution?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News