US Supreme Court agree to hear NJ Sports Betting case....
The Acting AG urged the Court NOT to take the case.Obama hold-over? God Damn Obama!!!!
The Acting AG urged the Court NOT to take the case.Obama hold-over? God Damn Obama!!!!
The Acting AG urged the Court NOT to take the case.Obama hold-over? God Damn Obama!!!!
The Acting AG urged the Court NOT to take the case.Obama hold-over? God Damn Obama!!!!
The SC should address the constitutionality of PASPA,since it doesn’t apply to all 50 states....
The SC should address the constitutionality of PASPA,since it doesn’t apply to all 50 states....
Not an occupational by-product..Hockeyteeth..I just believe that then US Constitution like the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land..
..and that a countries Constitution provides base or core of rules and principles that govern a country.
Not an occupational by-product..Hockeyteeth..I just believe that then US Constitution like the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of the land..
..and that a countries Constitution provides base or core of rules and principles that govern a country.
Good God,
There ARE NO bogus reasons for legalization.
If somebody told me back in the 1970's that MJ wouldn't be recreational legal until at least 2010 I would have bet MY LIFE it had to occur earlier.
And, YES THEY DO THINK, but only FOR THEMSELVES!!!
Good God,
There ARE NO bogus reasons for legalization.
If somebody told me back in the 1970's that MJ wouldn't be recreational legal until at least 2010 I would have bet MY LIFE it had to occur earlier.
And, YES THEY DO THINK, but only FOR THEMSELVES!!!
Perhaps most crucially for New Jersey, Justice Stephen Breyer pressed Clement to explain Congress’ goal in enacting PASPA. When Clement responded that Congress wanted to eliminate “state-sponsored or -operated gambling taking place by either individuals or the state,” Breyer pounced. That means, he observed, “there is no interstate policy other than the interstate policy of telling the states what to do.”
Arguing for the United States in support of the NCAA and the sports leagues, Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall tried to offer the justices a way around a potentially sticky constitutional problem. Here, he said, even though New Jersey characterized its 2014 law as a repeal of existing state laws regulating sports betting, the law actually authorized sports betting, in the sense that it only allowed sports betting at 12 specific casinos and racetracks in the state.
But that response got him into hot water with Roberts, after Wall responded “yes” to a question about whether New Jersey could repeal all existing state laws, “across the board, no exceptions.” “You have no problem at all and anyone can engage in any kind of gambling they want” – including a 12-year-old going to a casino? Roberts asked incredulously.
The argument continued for a few minutes more, but that exchange may have been enough for at least five justices. A decision in the case is expected by summer.
full article is here
https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-justices-seem-side-state-sports-betting/
Perhaps most crucially for New Jersey, Justice Stephen Breyer pressed Clement to explain Congress’ goal in enacting PASPA. When Clement responded that Congress wanted to eliminate “state-sponsored or -operated gambling taking place by either individuals or the state,” Breyer pounced. That means, he observed, “there is no interstate policy other than the interstate policy of telling the states what to do.”
Arguing for the United States in support of the NCAA and the sports leagues, Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall tried to offer the justices a way around a potentially sticky constitutional problem. Here, he said, even though New Jersey characterized its 2014 law as a repeal of existing state laws regulating sports betting, the law actually authorized sports betting, in the sense that it only allowed sports betting at 12 specific casinos and racetracks in the state.
But that response got him into hot water with Roberts, after Wall responded “yes” to a question about whether New Jersey could repeal all existing state laws, “across the board, no exceptions.” “You have no problem at all and anyone can engage in any kind of gambling they want” – including a 12-year-old going to a casino? Roberts asked incredulously.
The argument continued for a few minutes more, but that exchange may have been enough for at least five justices. A decision in the case is expected by summer.
full article is here
https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-justices-seem-side-state-sports-betting/
And who's to say it will stop with New Jersey? Allow it nationwide once and for all.
And who's to say it will stop with New Jersey? Allow it nationwide once and for all.
This is very interesting
This is very interesting
Hot Forum Topics
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
