US Supreme Court to Review Sports Betting Ban (PASPA)

Discussion in 'General Craps Discussion' started by random_roller, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. random_roller, Jun 29, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to review Governor Christie's appeal of NCAA vs. Governor of New Jersey (3rd Circuit 2016). A Federal District Court had ruled the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) prohibited states from passing (new) laws authorizing sports betting, a decision that was affirmed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (linked below).

    Given how few cases SCOTUS agrees to hear, its decision to hear New Jersey's appeal is significant. The acting solicitor general (#2 in the US Department of Justice) had filed a brief opposing SCOTUS review. The NCAA and all four major sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) oppose the expansion of sports betting.

    NCAA vs. Governor of New Jersey (3rd Circuit, 2016)
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/14-4546/14-4546-2016-08-11.html

    https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/27/s...etting-gambling-ban-new-jersey-chris-christie

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/...ports-betting-ban-heads-to-supreme-court.html

    Wonder who the oddsmakers will favor in this case?
     
    #1
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
    yacraps likes this.
  2. basicstrategy777, Jun 29, 2017

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,894
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    God is on the side of the largest battalions. ( and those that have an 'in' .

    777
     
    #2
    yacraps likes this.
  3. von duck, Jun 29, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know how the odds makers will see it , but, if the court is so liberal, that it can rule that a person has a constitutional right, to home delivered pizza, than it will probably side with the NCAA.
     
    #3
  4. random_roller, Jun 29, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    Most SCOTUS observers believe the current court is slightly conservative in its makeup. We'll learn more about newest appointee Neil Gorsuch over time. Too early to get a read on him as a justice of the US Supreme Court.
     
    #4
    yacraps likes this.
  5. betwthelines, Jun 29, 2017

    betwthelines

    betwthelines Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    tell ya what...ok...i'll lay odds...3 to 2 that the court rules in favor of the ncaa et al.

    winner must donate at least 10% with a $10 minimum to jacob's beer fund.
    being quite naive---extremely cynical for sure--- regarding politics, please enlighten me on how this is a "liberal-conservative" issue.

    seems to me to be pretty much an economic one but
    http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/1b/1bd653ca7760b8bb57c60797e773b15b4c6a92ea476e60e91e2e1e264cd5d43f.jpg


    tom p
     
    #5
    yacraps likes this.
  6. von duck, Jun 30, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    Gender:
    Male
    What isn't, these days.
     
    #6
  7. random_roller, Jun 30, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    Of course it's a political issue to some degree. All cases that are reviewed and decided by the US Supreme Court are to some extent. You're asking 9 justices for their opinion on a legal matter that far from black & white and almost always has huge implications on the public. They're not apolitical and are aware of and understand what goes on in Washington, D.C. Each justice was appointed and confirmed by partisan politicians. Several gradated from a law school that historically leans one way or the other. BTW, you can read the volumes of available material analyzing the makeup of the US Supreme Court over the years. There are a number of very interesting stories. I became interested in the law after reading Gideon v. Wainwright (372 US 355, 1963) a landmark US Supreme Court case (later made famous by Henry Fonda in the movie Gideon's Trumpet). That case was unusual -- the US Supreme Court flat-out overruled another (earlier) decision by the US Supreme Court (Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455, 1942)

    The following is an oversimplification.

    Conservative justices on the US Supreme Court tend to adopt a more literal interpretation of the US Constitution, including the 10th Amendment:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

    Liberal justices believe the US Constitution is a more flexible (dynamic) document whose interpretation can more readily change with the times even if the actual language has remained unchanged.

    Certainly, there are current justices who are well schooled in law & economics. However, my initial reaction is I don't think that will necessarily be the determining factor in this case., though there will likely be a discussion about the impact PASPA on a given state's economics. Who knows -- there is a long way to go before briefs are filed by numerous groups in support of their position.
     
    #7
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
    yacraps likes this.
  8. betwthelines, Jun 30, 2017

    betwthelines

    betwthelines Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    NOT TRUE...not always...you still see 7-2, even occasionally 9-0 rulings! where you would be hard-pressed from those rulings in isolation to say who is "liberal" and who is "conservative"

    yah, sure, i am not THAT naive that i do not realize that almost everything before the court is ultimately political...but NOT ALWAYS! is what i am saying.

    but you haven't really answered my question...HUGELY economic, certainly, but how is this case specifically political? seriously i do not see how it is...not that that of course would preclude many on this forum from making it political...lol

    ok, so i'll play along...how would the "liberals" rule then? and the conservatives? what would make a ruling for the ncaa etc--or vice-versa--liberal? conservative?

    frankly i believe any answer to those questions would be a "stretch"...although IF the ruling in fact does break out strictly along liberal-conservative lines, then i would admit to being possibly wrong in this instance.

    let's just see about that.

    -----------------------------------------.​

    btw my offer of a bet, laying 3 to anyone's 2 in favor of the sports orgs is a serious one.

    i mean, like, you know i kinda do like gambles...kinda do like bets.

    tom p
     
    #8
    yacraps likes this.
  9. random_roller, Jun 30, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    And sometimes you see a 12 or 3 rolled at the craps table. A 9-0 typically means the Chief Justice has pulled rank and "convinced" the fellow justices of the importance of a unanimous vote.

    Consider this -- 5-4 & 6-3 decisions are often -- but not always -- along ideological lines. And there are usually a lot of 5-4 decisions, excluding years when one justice is absent (e.g., passed away, illness, recuse). Keep in mind the US Supreme Court typically hears oral arguments on @80 cases per court year, but not all of them are decided in the same court year.

    If you're interested:

    https://empiricalscotus.com/2016/06/27/quick-take-5-4-decisions/

    http://www.supremecourtdatabase.org/data.php

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices
     
    #9
    yacraps likes this.
  10. betwthelines, Jun 30, 2017

    betwthelines

    betwthelines Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    yes, of course, as i and now you have stated, we are in complete agreement on this..."but not always" even you admit.

    we "seem" to disagree however that this specific case is political...i say it is not and while maybe you have not explicitly stated so, you "seem" to be saying that it is.

    since neither your posts nor your links have answered my specific question, let me try to put it to you in a slightly different way...too it is a fairly innocent enough question, completely lacking in guile, and your reluctance so far is, frankly, a bit mystifying since you, as i, are also apparently "into" this rather pleasant and interesting conversation.

    if this case is in fact politically "ideological", which way will the liberals vote and which way will the conservatives vote on it?. explaining your reasoning would also be interesting.

    what i am saying is that you cannot predict the outcome, nor even the individual votes of this case based upon the historical ideology of the justices.

    further evidence this case is substantially apolitical is that the usual suspects on this forum---who (ok, grant me hyperbole) will make whether a 12 or 3 is rolled somehow political---have not weighed in with any wacko political slants on this case.

    there must not be any...:cool:

    tom p
     
    #10
    yacraps likes this.
  11. von duck, Jun 30, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    Gender:
    Male
    Everybody knows, that Jefferson hated gamblers, they were evil in his mind, slave owners were OK though? The court will side with the NCAA.
     
    #11
  12. random_roller, Jun 30, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    @betwthelines

    Really tough day at the office (month's end for sales teams I support, executive escalation trying to get a deal approved) and I'm wiped out at the moment. Your earlier post probably deserves a far more thoughtful response than I can muster at the moment, so I'll have to defer to a later time.

    That being said, there are certain issues that lend themselves to be decided along political lines: abortion rights, death penalty issues, and separation of church & state, to name a few. Other issues, such as riparian rights and administrative law, are far more mundane (but not necessarily any less important) and don't evoke the same level of emotion.

    Have a good weekend, everyone.
     
    #12
    yacraps and betwthelines like this.
  13. random_roller, Jul 4, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    All cases heard by the US Supreme Court are, to some extent, political because of the manner in which justices are appointed (by the President) and confirmed (by the US Senate). That process itself is highly politicized. Take a look at what transpired after Justice Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016, while President Obama was still in office. The Republican-controlled US Senate refused to even conduct hearings on Merrick Garland, the candidate President Obama nominated to replace Justice Scalia on the US Supreme Court. Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn in as President in January 2017, his pick to fill the vacancy -- Neil Gorsuch -- was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate via the "Nuclear Option", resulting in only a 55-45 vote, not the 60 votes traditionally required to confirm the appointment of a justice to the US Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader McConnell had changed the rules to allow for a simple majority to confirm Gorsuch's nomination, because the Republican party lacked the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster by the Democratic Party. How's that for political -- straight from Politics 101. If one doesn't think the process for appointing and confirming a justice on the US Supreme Court is political, well, he/she has his/her head up his/her ass (or he/she could be reality challenged). Just ask Robert Bork.

    As for this case specifically, on the surface it doesn't have the trappings at the individual level of a Roe v. Wade, Gideon v. Wainwright, or Brown v. Board of Education type of case, so the personal passion that a given justice might have towards one of the parties isn't readily apparent. However, that the Court agreed to hear the case is noteworthy, as at least 4 justices had to give the okay. The decision rendered in this case might end up being the one to decide what constitutes equal protection under the law with respect individual states vis-à-vis each other. At this point, it's too early to get a read on what might happen. The oral arguments are key -- one can often get a good sense of what is the "trigger" for a given justice based upon their line of questioning.

    For what it's worth, I have lost a bit of respect for several current members of the Court who voted to allow unlimited campaign donations in one case (Citizens United v FEC, 558 US 310, 2010) and taking of private property for private economic use by another (Kelo v City of New London, 545 US 469, 2005). IMO, the majority decision in those 2 cases are an affront to the principle of equal justice under law. I am definitely not alone in that regard. BTW, both of those cases were 5-4 decisions. Hopefully, down the road a different Supreme Court gets the appropriate case and overturns those decisions by 9-0 or 8-1 votes.
     
    #13
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017
    yacraps likes this.
  14. betwthelines, Jul 5, 2017

    betwthelines

    betwthelines Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    rand, did you even read my post?

    why do you refuse to answer the question??

    if the sports betting ban (paras) court case is ideological, how will the scotus "liberals" vote? how will "conservatives" vote? ('course since i personally have no clue, first you would have to tell me who are the liberals and who are the conservatives and who the independents: i would bow completely to to your opinion on that matter, btw...lol)

    you have not and you cannot say precisely because it is not an ideological nor a political case...you cannot predict beyond random chance which judges will vote how in this case...since you have no ideological steerage in this case, you have no clue.

    ---------------------------------------------​

    NO ONE DISAGREES WITH WHAT YOU SAID:

    "All cases heard by the US Supreme Court are, to some extent, political because of the manner in which justices are appointed (by the President) etc etc..."

    it does not follow however that just because the gummint itself, including the judiciary, is a political entity that all legal cases are political. that it is not only an illogical non sequitur but absurd.

    indeed the VAST, VAST majority of court cases are not political in the least but economic ones or suits or custody ones.

    and make no mistake many of these are precedent setting and with sometimes complex and complicated legal rulings that do in fact reach scotus...although certainly holding IMMENSE interest to the parties involved, you simply do not hear about these again precisely because they hold no general nor political interest.

    --------------------------------------------​

    the court case examples you used in your political screed are most certainly highly charged. No One Disputes That Those Are Not Political Cases.

    but your screed is irrelevant to the question of this specific court case.

    we are simply talking past each other.

    tom p
     
    #14
    yacraps likes this.
  15. basicstrategy777, Jul 5, 2017

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,894
    Likes Received:
    6,044
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    Everybody is a poilitical animal....they have been brought up, environmented, schooled, and experienced. They have a leaning. This cannot be escaped.

    Best the President leans the way I do.....he can appoint judges the way he 'thinks'/leans.......decisions are ALL political. It cannot be escaped. I want the judges to think the way I think.

    The Trumpster has 2 more to appoint......I will die a happy man when this is done. I need all the 'leaners' I can get.

    And by the way....all cases brought before the court are political in some way....you may have to think about how that can be, but it will play out that way, in some way. IMHO.

    777
     
    #15
    yacraps likes this.
  16. random_roller, Jul 5, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    Refuse to answer your question? Did YOU even read my response? There isn't enough information available at the present time for me to form an opinion as to how I think the justices will view this case.

    Illogical? Not at all. Non sequitur? Laughable. It is not if, but only the degree to which politics affects a case heard by the Supreme Court. That means ALL cases. Period, end of story. Your failure to comprehend this is disconcerting, perhaps even alarming.

    In a nutshell, conservative justices support less federal government and believe (per the 10th Amendment) states should retain powers not specifically given to the federal government (or expressly prohibited to the states). Liberal justices are more likely to be activists, proponents of change at the federal government level, and the Commerce Clause has been used many times over the years to justify federal laws. BTW, I don't recall sports betting specifically being referenced in the US Constitution. Shame our forefathers missed that one.

    I'll probably make a pick after oral arguments. As I have previously stated, it's way too early in the process for me to make an informed guess as to how the justices of the Court might vote. It could come down to an interpretation of "states rights" (10th Amendment) vs. the Commerce Clause, in which case you might very well get a decision that is along political lines. IMO, gambling doesn't seem like something the federal government should be directly involved with, except w/r/t IGRA and, more importantly, the ability to tax a potentially huge revenue stream that currently is largely illicit and therefore taxes are not collected. But I think the bigger problem under PASPA is favoring a "grandfathered" state such as Nevada over other states (without legalized sports betting). How is that treating states as equals? And if sports betting is so horrible it requires legislation such as PASPA to protect the public, can you imagine Roger Goodell testifying before the US Supreme Court stating sports betting is indeed the devil incarnate and oh, by the way, the Raiders will begin playing in Las Vegas by 2021? I don't have an issue prohibiting amateur sports from legalized sports betting, but such a law should apply to all states.

    Oh, the fun is only beginning.
     
    #16
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    yacraps likes this.
  17. von duck, Jul 5, 2017

    von duck

    von duck Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe Night Attack, will chime in and give us the. "Aussi" take, on this matter. "It could happen".
     
    #17
  18. betwthelines, Jul 5, 2017

    betwthelines

    betwthelines Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    ok. we will just have to agree to disagree then. we are talking about two different things anyway...you about the "system" in which we completely agree and me about INDIVIDUAL cases, where apparently you think that 100% of the most minor court disputes are all political and where we seem to disagree. .
    what is disconcerting and alarming to me is that for you EVERYTHING must be politicized...THAT is scary...and counterproductive...what is apparently "alarming" to you about me is that i do not politicize EVERYTHING as if that makes me politically unaware or something.
    that's like saying that all tulips are plants.

    sure, it is true but a distinction often without meaning.

    absolutely all judges are political animals...the whole structure is political...absolutely you and everybody would like judges who line up with one's political ideology.

    how many times does this need to be re-stated for it to sink in that we are ALL in agreement about this!? there is no argument.

    for example, other than to the individuals directly involved what is the political relevance of the hundreds of divorce custody cases--LEGAL cases--that are in court right this minute? these are the tip of the iceberg of NON IDEOLOGICAL court cases.

    the majority of legal cases are simply disputes that have no political bearing on anything.

    that all individual legal cases are ideological or political is ABSURD and does violence to the english language.

    tom p
     
    #18
    yacraps likes this.
  19. random_roller, Jul 5, 2017

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,643
    Likes Received:
    4,458
    We're talking about a very limited subset of court cases -- those decided by the US Supreme Court. Not all court cases, not even all federal court cases. So any absurdity, if properly assigned, lies with your untenable position that we were discussing all court cases. As it is, all cases decided by the US Supreme Court *ARE* politicized, just some considerably more than others. You can choose to deny what is so obvious among the legal scholars & academics, as well as the members of the bar, but you would be wrong. Again.

    Why do you think the nomination & confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice is so thorough and contentious? It's almost never about whether the candidate is qualified. Both parties want to get a candidate that will support their often (diametrically) opposed positions. Politics, pure and simple. Watch how the newest appointee Neil Gorsuch votes in the upcoming Court year. See what side he consistently votes with.
     
    #19
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    yacraps likes this.
  20. betwthelines, Jul 5, 2017

    betwthelines

    betwthelines Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    1,455
    No. You are Wrong...Again.

    many non political, non ideological cases do reach scotus...these do not make the news.

    scotus hears approximately 80 & change cases per session. how many are covered in the general media? it is a fraction of them. the rest hold little newsworthy interest because they have no political content or otherwise lack widespread, personal affect.

    take a look at the last five words in your quote above and my first five in this post: we need here to either resort to name calling or agree to disagree.

    i prefer the latter and this is in fact my last public post on this, a substantially minor, semantic matter.

    if you wish to take it to PMs, i would be perfectly fine with that...might be fun even.

    tom p
     
    #20
    yacraps likes this.