Mike Florio: "Supreme Court drops NFL into a gambling minefield"
"A deep dive into the potential legalization of sports wagering and what it mean for the NFL" is the description by Pro Football Live via Audioboom. Florio does a decent job of explaining why there is a good shot that the Court will allow states to legalize gambling.
Florio's title is a bit over-the-top as I don't think it is a "minefield." It also misses the point that the NCAA is the first named defendant along with the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball.
For those of you interested in the case but don't want to listen, here are links to the legal briefs via SCOTUSblog on New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477.
The issue is whether Congress may, consistent with the Tenth Amendment, prohibit States from authorizing sports-gambling schemes. The federal statute is the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which Congress passed “to stop the spread of State-sponsored sports gambling.” The law prohibits private persons from operating sports-gambling schemes pursuant to state law. 28 U.S.C. 3702(2).
I agree with Florio: There is a really good chance the Supreme Court allows states to legalize gambling. I'm interested in what people think about that from a policy perspective and how it would change college football -- if at all.
For those who care, there are actually GOOD Canadian whiskies, including some bottlings of Canadian Club - but not that basic crap old dudes mix with ginger ale.
For one thing Canadians have the annoying habit of calling any whisky "Rye" even if it's not rye by American standards. So look for bottles that say 100% Rye or some such statement of the mash used.
Happy Canada Day, eh!
My dad drinks his Manhattans with Canadian Club. It's fucking disgusting.
Supreme Court: Winning since 1803! See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
I feel like this response borders on bringing politics into this thread. If you'd like I could tell you about the state of the supreme court currently, but last I checked there were rules against such posts.
And be done with it.
Gambling has been happening in the world since humans had legs. The first caveman bet someone else he couldn't make the wheel. That dude had to pay up and almost lost his entire stick pile.
murder/rape/robbery/arson have been happening in the world since humans (e.g., cain v. abel). we need to legalize these things too and be done with it.
as to the gambling on games though, don't people already have access to these things?
What an absolutely horrible, horrible comparison.
People betting on sports...
vs...
People killing and hurting other people...
Do I really need to go any further?
and that's probably the internet magic. i was NOT comparing gambling to those crimes. i was only commenting on the rationale: if people have been doing it, legalize it. that's it, no more. not particularly troubled by the gambling thing in that it is legal already, albeit maybe not as accessible as it could be.
I get your logic, but it's a borderline straw man. It's a stretch to assume Uncle Leo was saying that all things that humans have been doing for a long time should be OK. I think you can easily understand what he was saying as: People have been doing it for a long time, it doesn't really hurt anyone else in the process and making it illegal really doesn't do anything useful.
It is the truth. I was not even close to making that statement.
into what i wrote. i am not attributing that to you leo.
All I can do is read what you wrote. And it was not written well.
I understand what you mean now after clarification, but the initial post took me back.
+ the internet, there was a near collision here. fortunately nobody was hurt in the exchange, and no tickets were written or arrests made. phew.
Yes, you're right, if he were attempting to actually argue a point with anyone that mattered and not make a silly comment on a pointless sports website then he should probably have framed his argument a little better.
Everyone here knew EXACTLY what he meant and KNEW that he wasn't advocating murder. He defended himself because someone had to come in and make the stupid ass comment knowing full well that wasn't what he meant. He defended himself because someone came in and said, "fuck it, i'm gonna pick a fight with this guy".
the needle, and the spoon.
Only took 15 posts. Could be a new record.
Dude. You're better than that.
No. People do not have equal access to these things.
User name checks out.
...is boosted, in part, by fantasy football and gambling.
The same hold true for other sports leagues (NBA, MLB).
Mostly.
If gambling went away, these sports would sink.
I think that NFL and all other sports have admitted it, by pushing the Pro Vegas sports team agenda, and the weekly televised fantasy shows, with former players and coaches suguesting who people should play or sit. They fully embrace the fantasy angle.
Yeah, Al Michaels references the spread at least once a game.
The NFL endorsed gambling the first time it put out an injury report. Those aren't for other teams to look over, those are for bookies setting the spread.
Well that sucks for low-level employees making a buck or two but point taken.
The OP states the issue well. It seems like the question is quite a narrow one and actually quite interesting. The lawsuit is not arguing that Congress can't make gambling illegal under federal law. It certainly can. If Congress wants to make gambling illegal and enforce it using federal resources like the FBI, it can certainly do so.
But the law Congress passed actually prevents states from "authorizing" gambling. So a state where gambling is illegal cannot legalize it. This means Congress is forcing state legislatures to keep certain state laws on the books and forcing state cops to enforce those laws.
Basically, the federal government is generally allowed to order around its own employees as much as it wants. But the 10th Amendment creates limits on when it can order around state employees, which means the law Congress passed might be unconstitutional.
I do find the legal issues it creates to be interesting though.
Agnostic: To not know.
And it's ok to not know. But it's not ok to not know & say that you know. That's a no-no.
Agnostic - (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something. Not taking a stand on something, especially not holding either of two usually strongly opposed positions.
If you don't believe me, just type the word into the google search engine or search at dictionary.com.
gnostic
1. pertaining to knowledge
2. possesing knowledge
The origin of the word is Latin & literally means: to know. Put an "a" in front & it is the opposite.
I'm sure you are aware that words often have more than one.
From dictionary.com:
agnostic - not taking a stand on something, especially not holding either of two usually strongly opposed positions
Would this issue be considered Southern aggression or Northern aggression? Or will we unite over a common enemy?