Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Law Prohibiting Sports Gambling (espn.com) 171
The Supreme Court has struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively prevented most states from legalizing sports betting, clearing up a legal gray area and opening a door for state governments to join in what has become a lucrative industry. From a report: The court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), a 1992 law that 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.
States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first. Delaware, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are among the states expected to quickly get into the legal bookmaking game.
States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first. Delaware, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are among the states expected to quickly get into the legal bookmaking game.
Another one bites the dust... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree it should be legal because prohibition is stupid as a concept and all it does it create unregulated black markets run by dangerous people, but also no denying that legal gambling is effectively a regressive tax on the poor and lower classes.
Re:Another one bites the dust... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another one bites the dust... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better comparison would be phones, computers or even slashdot, though slashdot at least is cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we should outright ban it (or alcohol), but it's naive to dismiss those negatively affected by it saying "meh, no one put a gun to your head".
If someone does put a gun to your head and make you do something for their benefit, then that's slavery. But if they don't, then it's just taking advantage of you. It's a fundamentally different thing, however you feel about it.
Taxing things is cool so long as the revenues are spent on fixing the problems with the thing. When the money goes into the general fund, everything goes into the toilet.
The Phrase the GP is looking for (Score:2)
Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math.
The proper quote is not wrong. It's just that there's a disproportionate amount of poor people who are bad at math since, well, math is a valuable skill and if you're good at it you're probably not poor (though I wouldn't bet on it
Re: (Score:2)
It's the sort of thing I hear crackheads say.
Or Anonymous Cowards? Very few people think gambling is a way to make $$. And it's true for even fewer. But desperation leads people to irrational acts, like blowing your milk money on lottery tickets. At least with sports betting you're betting against experts instead of against statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. Absolutely no is making them gamble or waste their money on taking chances. It's entirely optional. It's personal responsibility. Taxes OTOH, are mandatory by law.
Gambling is a luxury at best, and IMO more like stupidity; of all the vices one could enjoy, throwing your money away on a slim chance is incomprehensible to me. The odds of one financially coming out ahead are low to really low.
Re:Another one bites the dust... (Score:5, Informative)
Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...
Gambling doesn't occur in a vacuum.
Studies: Casinos bring jobs, but also crime, bankruptcy, and even suicide [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Studies can also show that virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime. But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't. This is another attempt to do just that. Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
What studies show you can't legislate morality? What study shows virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime? I would of thought the higher employment the less crime.
I do agree that the law probably won't make people moral, it should be there to protect people from being taken advantage of. Although there will always be people who break the law, and laws that are flawed and perhaps should be broken, they provide a guide as to what society deems acceptable. Most people follow the law most of the ti
Re: (Score:3)
Look up studies on the war on drugs and tell me if that was successful? How about laws against prostitution? Have they made the problem, that was never a problem to begin with, better or worse? What is your feelings on the past about laws banning homosexuality? Was that a good thing?
No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.
Re: (Score:2)
No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.
Since you're cherry picking subjects I assume this means you'd like to repeal the 13th amendment [wikipedia.org], or is it a moral issue only when you want to lift the ban? That it's illegal to show kids porn, is that a moral issue? To me the line in the sand of what laws deal with "moral issues" and not seems rather arbitrary...
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes, it is my cherry picked subjects because there would be to many to list. It was actually the list I pulled off the top of my head.
But the point is still valid. Government shouldn't try to legislate these issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Would've.
Why is it that people expect to be taken as knowledgeable about anything when they can't handle sixth grade spelling reliably.
Note, by the by, that a typo (hitting "o" then "i" rather that "i" then "o", for example) isn't what I'm bitching about....
Note to self: don't post when blood-sugar is low. It makes you even crankier than the normal "pretty-damn cranky"....
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that people expect to be taken as knowledgeable about anything when they can't handle sixth grade spelling reliably.
Seriously, why is it important for someone to point out every little spelling and grammar mistake someone makes? It is not important in an informal discussion, which slashdot is. You don't even know if English is a 1st, 3rd or even 4th language of the original poster. Hell you don't even know if the original poster is human. He could be a incredibly talented gibbon.
In days of Usenet it was actually considered very rude to point out grammar and spelling mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, who cares. Spectator sports and dying slowly but surely and the corruption that gambling will bring into localised sports will just accelerate the process. All sorts of crap, can not buy a player to throw a game, pay someone to cripple them for that match, pay off referees, all sorts of crap will happen and trying to monitor and control it at that level, impossible, so it will get right out of hand. They fought to remove the legislation not for simple equal odds gambling but for purposefully corr
Re:Another one bites the dust... (Score:5, Insightful)
But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't.
Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement. So is "don't steal". What one can do in a contractual framework, ditto.
The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.
Those who forget history tend to repeat it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, sports gambling laws actually stop all gambling on sports? Because otherwise, there's still an incentive to rig games....
Re: (Score:2)
So, sports gambling laws actually stop all gambling on sports?
No more so than murder laws stop all murders or all robbery laws stop all robberies. Did you think anyone said otherwise?
Because otherwise, there's still an incentive to rig games....
If you remove large scale economic incentives, you reduce the motive for doing so.
Should we do away with all laws because they do not actually stop all illegal activity? Or do we accept that criminals will still break the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, criminal activities are negative sum. A burglar gains the value of the loot he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is based on the moral principle that economics should define what matters.
No, his argument was that you don't have to consider moral values, you can also consider economic ones. He didn't say you should define "what matters" in any specific way, only that there is more than one way to get to the same answer.
Yes, there is entertainment value to gambling. When it is rigged it is a negative sum game for everyone but the cheater, so there can be no economic value to them. If they discover the cheating, then they lose the entertainment value, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement.
You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient. There are economic effects to murder.
The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.
Sure, but that's not morality either. Attempts to rig those games lead to expensive court proceedings. It's cheaper for society if that doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient. There are economic effects to murder.
And why do economic affects matter? There is no universal truth of correctnes, ultimately it comes down to you assigning some sort of value to that. And that is entirely equivalent to a moral judgement. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient. There are economic effects to murder.
And why do economic affects matter?
Because we live under capitalism, and capital controls the means of production.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to take a moral stand against murder to find it inconvenient.
Murder is an inconvenience. Wow. Lots of things that are perfectly legal are inconvenient. It's inconvenient that the mailman comes at noon. It would be convenient if he came at 6AM. Should there be a law?
Attempts to rig those games lead to expensive court proceedings.
Only because it was illegal. It was illegal for moral reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, what does it matter if it is rigged?
So you support the idea that victory should go to the ones with the most money, not the ones who are the best at something. Hey, kids, don't bother working hard to be the best at some sport, the outcome of any game you play will depend on how much money is involved and which of your teammates has been bought. Discipline and sportsmanship are outmoded. Make sure you get your money while you can.
It's of no consequence to the world at large.
What a sad, fatalistic view you have. What you just posted is of no consequence to the world at large, yet you post
Re: (Score:2)
Rigging a game does not mean it is unenjoyable. Look at the WWE as an example. Predetermined, yet tons of fans.
Is that the best you can do? WWE is not a sport, it is scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people who are paid to get the desired result. You would never call a Jackie Chan movie "sports", would you? Maybe you would -- it's scripted entertainment performed by trained stunt people (which includes Jackie himself) paid to get the desired result.
You destroy your own argument by using this as an example -- you turn all honest sporting contests into crap media events by trying to equate them.
Rigging only hurts people dumb enough to bet on it.
Riggi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What they did find was that the Federal law outlawing gambling was unconstitutional because of the way it was written, essentially forcing the states to ban gambling themselves.
It was even weirder than that. It forced the stats to unban gambling during a narrow window, and then closed that window for all states for all time.
It allowed states a window to opt out of a federal law, if they pushed through legislature to do it.
I'm more than happy seeing fucked up shit like that overturned. The justices pretty much said to congress, "If you want to ban it, do it right."
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...
Wanna bet?
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...
Not only a "law", but an obviously illegal one at that. The Constitution doesn't provide *any* possible authorization for Congress to be involved in such.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking advantage of humanity's general fundamental inability to truly comprehend and internalize consequences of statistically foolish behavior is harmless? Or were you under the impression that that was not how bookies and casinos make money?
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...
Indeed! But then there is that money thing. Money, and the billions that this represents means that point shaving will become the norm. The people who run gambling now that it is intrenched and given blessing and support by the Supremes, simply will not suffer a loss. They won't. This is going to turn out as well as dark money, and the corporation being a super person.
And just like state lotteries, the poor will use it as a last ditch retirement plan. But don't worry, the billionairs will add a lot to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gambling is harmless. Gambling more than you can afford is not, but that is the problem of the gambler, and does not require legislation.
Re: Another one bites the dust... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it's also the problem of his or her children, family, etc. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but people do not exist in vacuums.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Steve Wright monotone:
people do not exist in vacuums.
they couldn't breath.
So is drinking, should we... (Score:2)
...try Prohibition again? Every place I've worked at has had a pool on one sport or another whether it be legal or not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who are hooked on drugs commit crimes to ensure their future supply of those drugs. You can say "not my problem" but eventually they will make it your problem. In the end analysis, it is often cheaper to pay to rehabilitate them than to simply keep imprisoning them and dealing with the societal damage they cause when back out on the streets. Addicts who die are actually the least of your problem.
Drug addicts ruin (and sometimes end) the lives of innocent people. What price do you put on that? When yo
Re: (Score:2)
To some degree, yes. But overwhelmingly we seem to regulate vices because we're hypocrites who would rather ignore someone than help them, to the point where we'd rather spend money to lock someone up than rehabilitate them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legalize drugs, then regulate and tax them just like alcohol and tobacco.
Columbian Druglords have nothing on big corporations...
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm there with you about 99%, I don't see the problems with the govt. providing information, or requiring that people selling things are truthful and honest about their product.
I don't think the govt should ban drugs, and if a person wants to use them, go ahead.
But I don't see
Re: (Score:2)
And how many more decades should this be done? It's not like the government hasn't been warning people since before I was born (something something decades ago). How many more studies need to be done telling people, "Drugs are bad, m'kay?"
How many news articles are there every day telling us how many more people died from opioid overdoses? How about the articles about
Re: (Score:2)
Well it would be nice to have some non-biased studies. Judging by your rant, you could be a lot better informed along with most people. This is due to years of biased studies put out to push a pre-concieved answer, namely that drugs are bad.
It's true, some drugs are killers. Aspirin killing thousands a year, Tylenol always being one of the top causes of death for young children, and a horrible way to die as well (total liver failure). Then there's the drugs that are unregulated and often tainted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government is not (supposed to be) here to be a nanny over the populace, and protect them from their own idiocy.
Which is exactly why the government should stop warning people about the dangers of drugs. Stop the nanny state. If people are too stupid to realize there is a good chance they will die from using drugs, that's their problem.
While I agree with the basics, in my experience, real life gets a little fuzzy around the edges. How about if what I do might affect someone else? Like if I take drugs while pregnant and my child ends up with birth defects? Maybe it was the fentanyl or the booze. Might have been the heroin. Prove it. Society still has an addicted mother on it's hands, and now it has a very sick baby too.
And I have a problem with the "too stupid to realize" idea. It's easy to throw stones. Most addicts know what t
Re: (Score:3)
' Funny, nowhere in that preamble, nor IN the actual Constitution, do I find wh
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, you should have prefaced "government" with "federal" in your post.
Also, did you know that there is no federal law against murder (or robbery) except on Federal property (i.e. military bases)? Murder and robbery are, in general, rightly dealt with at the State level....
Re: Another one bites the dust... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think that means what you think it means....
Re: (Score:2)
> limited, enumerated roles and responsibilities
The Feds get to regulate interstate commerce. That easily covers this, especially once consumer and provider are in different states.
Re: (Score:2)
promote the general Welfare,
See, the constitution contains two blank checks to government. One of them is here, you quoted it. Basically anything can be construed to promote the general welfare. The other, of course, is the ICC.
Nowhere in there do I see that the government should be telling you what and what not to do with your own freaking body, or your time or your money.
If it promotes the general welfare of the nation, it can be justified using the constitution as written.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could shoot yourself; I'm all for the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling is harmless. Gambling more than you can afford is not, but that is the problem of the gambler, and does not require legislation.
Gambling is God's will.
Re:Another one bites the dust... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can be a tax is more accurate. I very occasionally gamble, well aware that I'm not going to win anything much, it can be fun and occasionally I come out a dollar or two ahead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Another one bites the dust... (Score:3)
States regulate gambling because it can be an extremely addictive vice a non tiny portion of the population gets hooked on.
Re: (Score:3)
Makes sense (Score:4, Funny)
Because if there's anything that will keep politicians honest, it's gambling
Re: (Score:2)
In the stock market, you are buying a piece of a company, even if the value of the company goes down, you still own it.
Re: Makes sense (Score:2)
Unless the company goes bankrupt. The company is sold off to pay creditors and shareholders are the absolute last in line to get paid, assuming anything is left. Usually thereâ(TM)s no money left over, and youâ(TM)ve lost your ownership.
Banned to "protect integrity"? (Score:1)
>"Our most important priority is protecting the integrity of our games," MLB's statement said.
Yeah, I think steroids ended any claim to "integrity" in professional sports a long time ago.
Fuck Manny "Scared of Needles" Pacquiao, farce of the century, with 1990s Roy Jones being the farce of the previous century.
New Jersey was self-inflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
The law that was just overturned was written in such a way so that NJ could get exempted along with Nevada (so could any other states that wanted to), they just had to fill out paperwork/legalize it before a deadline. It was obvious Atlantic City would want sports betting, so the federal law assumed NJ would make it legal. But the state legislature really fell down, and hence for 26 years it's been trying to undo that mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been at the casinos. Where else do you expect sports betting in 1992?
Addiction for taxation FTW (Score:2)
They're already projecting that this will net $6B in taxable revenue for states by 2023.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was okay there either. Nevada and its residents (former resident speaking here) reap huge financial rewards for legalized gambling.
Climate Bet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can they adjust the raw data last... after the Government does ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you make a condition of the bet to not allow NOAA to modify the data, I'll take the bet any time.
If you allow NOAA to make adjustments, its not gambling, its just handing over money because you know the outcome.
All current increases in temperature match NOAA adjustments 100%. Warmest year without adjustments is 1936.
So here's the thing, and please keep in mind I'm a human-induced climate-change skeptic: NOAA absolutely need to adjust the data, otherwise it will always show a warming trend.
The Urban Heat Island effect is well known. As urban areas expand and the amount of concrete (and other structured) increase, nearby weather stations become contaminated with these changes. To counter this, the readings are modified by a series of "known good" stations that are (relatively) nearby. The effectiveness of that particu
Blatant corruption? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that because Nevada already had established sports betting pools, it was grandfathered in. Or it might just have been an exception that lawmakers had to concede to get enough votes to pass it. Who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The law was kind of sneaky (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to see gambling fully legalized. The Casino operators are crazy rich and use their money to buy all kinds of influence. It'd be nice to see some of that power broke up even a little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
"There can be only one Lord of the Rings, only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!"
indian casinos will push hard even if the state th (Score:2)
indian casinos will push hard even if the state they are in says no.
Damn it, I betted against this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately gambling on politics is illegal in the US. Lots of people have pointed out this would remove a lot of the BS from politics. If someone wanted to claim law x would have y effect they could back up their claim by putting money on it, if they don't bet, they obviously don't belive it that much
Re: (Score:2)
Where's Biff Tannen? (Score:3, Funny)
one less reason to watch/bet on sports... (Score:2)
With wide spread betting, I'm guessing it will be easier for small-time point shaving rackets to operate...
It'll even be less important who will win, but the line will be closely watched. I'm sure you'll see more than more coach or ref taken for task for actions during garbage time.
As if it couldn't get any worse, right now you need to go off shore to bet on High School sports (was offered at 5dimes for a while)... I'm guessing it won't take long for that to change...
I bet you didn't see that one coming! (Score:2)
States' Rights (Score:2)
It looks like the issue is actually States' Rights, and not that a Federal Law regulating (or maybe even banning) gambling is necessarily unconstitutional. Last sentence of the majority opinion, partially quoted in TFA:
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. PASPA is not. PASPA "regulate[s] state governments' regulation" of their citizens, New York, 505 U. S., at 166. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.
Makes sense to me. Also, I'm always interested in the breakdown whenever one or more of the justices "defect" (liberal justice going with a conservative majority opinion or vice versa). For anyone who's curious: Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually commandeering rather than states' rights. The feds were trying make the states enforce federal law.
In the quote you mentioned, Congress can, tomorrow if they wish, outlaw all gambling under interstate commerce power. They can't pass a law stating that the states can't change their laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's another way to look at it.
Yay, another way to launder money! (Score:2)
Gambling is a one-way function on funds, allowing them to be laundered. Now we can expect more efficient bribes - no more going to Nevada or other jurisdictions, you can bribe your official in any state.
I like how we are promoting local business (as long as it's in the family).
Morality isn't what this is about (Score:2)
This is about the major for-profit sports industry (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, NCAA) getting pissed because someone else is making a profit off their sports they can't get a piece of. Every sports book will be "using" their IP (team names, player names) to make money and they won't get a dime of it.
The leagues also worry about it harming the "integrity" of their sport. They need the public convinced that the outcomes are purely driven by competition and that there's no manipulation driving outcomes. I think thi
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're taking bets on who he'll marry next.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You poor SOB's with TDS really need to get some professonal help. You are so fixated with your hatred of the man that you have to work him in as a negative issue on every little thing. Trump had absolutely nothing to do with this but yet you feel the need to bring him up and find some reason to bash him with it. This is not healthy, please seek medical help as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't follow his tweets and I don't see why any else would. I actually have better things to do with my time. But I did a search and there are none on the issue. The only thing that came up is where the Supreme court asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the issue. Which is common practice.
Re: (Score:2)