Will today's tragedy in Las Vegas doom Monmouth?

[bigeastbeast]

Today,the Supreme Court began its fall term,a term in which they will decide whether Nevada's sports betting monopoly will come to an end and to allow Monmouth to take bets,a development likely being essential to its very survival.

Now after last night's massacre and probable fall off of tourism,will the Justices feel sympathy for the Silver State and rule against Christie?

[Afleet]

Why should one state have an unfair advantage over the other 49 states? Seems like a slam dunk

[LemonSoupKid]

Seems just as likely, or more, that it would provide for gambling there. It's about the law, which is why I'm happy MAGA is in order.

[dilanesp]

Why should one state have an unfair advantage over the other 49 states? Seems like a slam dunk

I wish this were true, but there are all sorts of doctrines that allow Congress to favor some states over others.

[onefast99]

I wish this were true, but there are all sorts of doctrines that allow Congress to favor some states over others.The one revenue stream being looked at here is VLTs they are operated under the lottery commission and have passed legislation. Steve Sweeney has voiced opposition to this as he stated it will hurt Atlantic City and do irreparable harm.
Christie also saw that the VLTs could hurt AC. The time frame for instituting these machines at the racetracks has come and gone. I don't know if sports wagering will get the ok in NJ but if Drazin keeps fighting for its approval maybe it will come to fruition in one form or another.

[PaceAdvantage]

I admit, I could never see a thread like this coming in the wake of what happened in Vegas...what's the opposite of BRAVO!?!?

[GMB@BP]

I see it maybe being an issue from another angle, some tv people have been saying "this dude lost money in the last few weeks before he did this so maybe it drove him to do this"

when in fact it took a LONG time to plan this out.

But facts dont matter much when you have a agenda. But gambling equals bad people so there ya go monmouth.

[biggestal99]

I see it maybe being an issue from another angle, some tv people have been saying "this dude lost money in the last few weeks before he did this so maybe it drove him to do this"

when in fact it took a LONG time to plan this out.

But facts dont matter much when you have a agenda. But gambling equals bad people so there ya go monmouth.

The guy was a poker player not a sports bettor.

Allan

[GMB@BP]

The guy was a poker player not a sports bettor.

Allan

gambling is gambling man...its evil

[dilanesp]

gambling is gambling man...its evil

It's always worth remembering, at least in the back of one's mind, that gambling ruins a lot of people's lives.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't do it or shouldn't try to make money doing it, but it is worth keeping in mind when issues come up about regulations or why you aren't allowed to bet in certain ways or on certain events, etc. Ideally, we want the losers to be people who can afford to lose and who won't hurt people by losing, not people gambling the rent money or harming their families.

[SandyW]

The guy was a poker player not a sports bettor.

Allan

He was a Video Poker player not a live table poker player.

[biggestal99]

It's always worth remembering, at least in the back of one's mind, that gambling ruins a lot of people's lives.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't do it or shouldn't try to make money doing it, but it is worth keeping in mind when issues come up about regulations or why you aren't allowed to bet in certain ways or on certain events, etc. Ideally, we want the losers to be people who can afford to lose and who won't hurt people by losing, not people gambling the rent money or harming their families.

Well so does alcohol. and it completely legal in most of the US.

We live in America, where freedom rings.

we dont live in a nanny state, telling people whats bad for them and the passing laws.

I remember the proposed big soda ban here in NYC.

The nanny Bloomberg wanted to rid NYC of 20 oz sodas

if I want to purchase a 20 OZ soda. I should have the freedom to choose it

same with sports betting, If I want to place a bet on the Jets this week against the browns I should be able to legally.

I bet on the sport of horse racing with nary a whimper.

Allan

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I don't even see how this is a real thread.

This guy planned for a long time to do this. Its not like he lost his ass playing paigow poker and then decided to do this.

I think this has zero impact on Monmouth. I would be extremely surprised if they didn't get sports betting in the next two years.

As an aside, it seems like tragedies have become common place; almost to the point that I have become desensitized and don't bat an eye anymore. However, seeing the videos that were taken in a city I have visited too many times has really gotten to me. Bombings that take place, you really don't see the end result because of the nature of the attack. But actually seeing people getting mowed down or others carrying lifeless bodies...its horrible.

[dilanesp]

Well so does alcohol. and it completely legal in most of the US.

We live in America, where freedom rings.

we dont live in a nanny state, telling people whats bad for them and the passing laws.

I remember the proposed big soda ban here in NYC.

The nanny Bloomberg wanted to rid NYC of 20 oz sodas

if I want to purchase a 20 OZ soda. I should have the freedom to choose it

same with sports betting, If I want to place a bet on the Jets this week against the browns I should be able to legally.

I bet on the sport of horse racing with nary a whimper.

Allan

Well, it's not that simple. Should you be able to bet on the Presidential election? They do in the UK, but it's illegal here.

Should you be able to bet on the performance of very small companies with unregistered securities? It's possible, but its made very difficult by securities regulations.

There isn't a constitutional right to bet, and for good reason. "Gambling" involves a lot of activities that create significant regulatory issues.

And problem gambling is one of those issues. To give an example of a ban I agree with, I don't think that online slot machines are something that should be legalized. If someone really wants to play the slots, requiring the person to get out to a casino is a reasonable requirement. It cuts losses, it gives people time to reflect, and it probably, overall, reduces the amount of problem gambling while still preserving some freedom to bet on spinning reels.

It's just something you should always keep in mind. We don't live in a fully libertarian society, we can't, we won't, and we shouldn't. Government has a role in making certain stuff harder to do, and it has that role because certain stuff SHOULD be harder to do.

[dilanesp]

I don't even see how this is a real thread.

This guy planned for a long time to do this. Its not like he lost his ass playing paigow poker and then decided to do this.

I think this has zero impact on Monmouth. I would be extremely surprised if they didn't get sports betting in the next two years.

As an aside, it seems like tragedies have become common place; almost to the point that I have become desensitized and don't bat an eye anymore. However, seeing the videos that were taken in a city I have visited too many times has really gotten to me. Bombings that take place, you really don't see the end result because of the nature of the attack. But actually seeing people getting mowed down or others carrying lifeless bodies...its horrible.

This thread migrated. The original issue (which got a terrible headline) was about the Supreme Court sports betting case, which pits Las Vegas (i.e., the sports betting monopoly) against Monmouth Park (which wants to sell bets on sports events).

[LemonSoupKid]

I wish this were true, but there are all sorts of doctrines that allow Congress to favor some states over others.

None that are actually Constitutional. It's clear that Amendment X of the Bill of Rights allows gambling for all states. The problem with modern politics and judicial activism (Dems have been recorded saying this) is that they admit that the judges can take "Interstate Commerce" theoretically to a place that negates the point of the Constitution in the first place. My question is, "If an Amendment that is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights is never applied, what's the purpose of it in the first place"? They've made the Constitution in their image, sadly, instead of applying it as is.

[biggestal99]

I wish this were true, but there are all sorts of doctrines that allow Congress to favor some states over others.

which is why the question posed to SCOTUS is anti-commandeering and not sovereignty issue.

Can the federal gov't freeze a states laws in place like PASPA has done?

Jersey repealed its sports betting laws within the confines of a casino or racetrack, yet the 3rd circuit ruled that by repealing the laws its authorizing by law.

Some SCOTUS justices didn't like that ruling hence Certiorari was granted.

Allan

[LemonSoupKid]

which is why the question posed to SCOTUS is anti-commandeering and not sovereignty issue.

Can the federal gov't freeze a states laws in place like PASPA has done?

Jersey repealed its sports betting laws within the confines of a casino or racetrack, yet the 3rd circuit ruled that by repealing the laws its authorizing by law.

Some SCOTUS justices didn't like that ruling hence Certiorari was granted.

Allan

Even under sovereignty it wins, but sadly judges have acted outside the Constitution for such things. I challenge anyone to produce a law that literally is no different for any state if adopted or allowed, but is restricted to a few or only one (as is the case with NV) in a completely arbitrary manner, thus the grandfather principle. By their own admission and action, PAPSA is unconstitutional.

[dilanesp]

None that are actually Constitutional. It's clear that Amendment X of the Bill of Rights allows gambling for all states. The problem with modern politics and judicial activism (Dems have been recorded saying this) is that they admit that the judges can take "Interstate Commerce" theoretically to a place that negates the point of the Constitution in the first place. My question is, "If an Amendment that is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights is never applied, what's the purpose of it in the first place"? They've made the Constitution in their image, sadly, instead of applying it as is.

Let me explain something to you.

Your views wouldn't last past the second week of jurisprudence class in law school. We inherited a common law system from the British, which is specifically referenced in the Constitution (e.g., look at the Seventh Amendment). The "judicial power" of the United States is vested, by Article III of the Constitution, in a Supreme Court and any lower courts that Congress chooses to create, and the Supreme Court is vested with appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in the United States.

Thus, the way our system works, the way the framers intended it to work, is that the courts interpret the Constitution consistent with common law principles. In other words, they develop doctrines which are then applied, cut back, and expanded in an iterative process over time.

That decisional law IS what the Constitution means. Just like it would make no sense to a devout Catholic to point to some provision of the Bible and say "this means we ignore the teachings and doctrines of Church elders and Popes", it makes zero sense for an ordinary citizen to point to some provision of the Constitution and say that Supreme Court decisions are "unconstitutional". Supreme Court decisions are, under Article VI of the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land".

The Constitution contains various provisions requiring uniformity of certain sorts of laws, but those provisions are interpreted in a limited manner, because just about every piece of major federal legislation contains some provisions that benefit certain states at the expense of others. Those decisions resulted from a court attempting to square the text of the Constitution with practical legislative experience, to create workable doctrine, which is what the common law system demands the Court do. If the Court is way off, a political party can convince the voters to put it into power and appoint new justices, or you can amend the Constitution. But this is the Court's job, and the views of private citizens about what the words of the Constitution mean are completely irrelevant to the task of formulating doctrine. The statement "the Supreme Court violated the Constitution", made by a private citizen, basically has no meaning and no importance under our system.

Do I agree with everything the Court has said or done on favoritism of states? Not at all. I think some of it is quite wrong. But it's not unconstitutional. Far from it-- it's a totally plausible action, taken by the branch of government that has the power to promulgate legal doctrines, to reconcile constitutional text with what we know about the legislative process. And it's a totally reasonable conclusoin, though not the only reasonable conclusion, to hold that Congress can limit sports betting to Nevada. Both conclusions are reasonable under current doctrine, which is why the Court has this case.

[dilanesp]

which is why the question posed to SCOTUS is anti-commandeering and not sovereignty issue.

Can the federal gov't freeze a states laws in place like PASPA has done?

Jersey repealed its sports betting laws within the confines of a casino or racetrack, yet the 3rd circuit ruled that by repealing the laws its authorizing by law.

Some SCOTUS justices didn't like that ruling hence Certiorari was granted.

Allan

It's definitely an interesting legal issue that could go either way. You shouldn't make the assumption in your last sentence-- plenty of cases get cert. granted and then go 9-0 for the Respondent. The cert. grant means nothing other than the Court felt this was an important issue to be resolved.

[Franco Santiago]

He was a Video Poker player not a live table poker player.

Video Poker = Slot Machine, basically. A game of chance. Oh, maybe SOMMMMMEWHAT a game of skill, but you are still playing against the house.

[ultracapper]

I don't really want to get involved in any of this, but the very creation of the House of Representatives favors some states over others. Of course party politics have compromised those advantages, but all the same.

[ultracapper]

And the Electoral College, if you really want to get into a big political brouhaha.

[biggestal99]

It's definitely an interesting legal issue that could go either way. You shouldn't make the assumption in your last sentence-- plenty of cases get cert. granted and then go 9-0 for the Respondent. The cert. grant means nothing other than the Court felt this was an important issue to be resolved.

This is definitely not a 9-0. Clearly there are justices who believe like the 3rd circuit does that a federal law that freezes state laws forever is a-OK constitutionally and just as clearly justices that PASPA violates Jersey's right to repeal is own laws and is unconstitutional.

a fascinating case to me. Prolly a 5-4 with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

Allan

[onefast99]

This is definitely not a 9-0. Clearly there are justices who believe like the 3rd circuit does that a federal law that freezes state laws forever is a-OK constitutionally and just as clearly justices that PASPA violates Jersey's right to repeal is own laws and is unconstitutional.

a fascinating case to me. Prolly a 5-4 with Kennedy being the deciding vote.

Allan
It seems as if Drazin has a lot of confidence this may be ruled in MP's favor, what is your thought?


“It's no longer a question of if, but when sports betting will come,” Drazin said. “Our efforts appear to have snowballed into a national movement. The people of New Jersey have voted overwhelming in favor of this issue, the American public appears to be onboard and now either the courts or Congress must act. We are proud to have spearheaded this movement and are confident that the first sports wager will take place at Monmouth Park in the very near future.”

[thespaah]

Seems just as likely, or more, that it would provide for gambling there. It's about the law, which is why I'm happy MAGA is in order.

MAGA?

[thespaah]

The one revenue stream being looked at here is VLTs they are operated under the lottery commission and have passed legislation. Steve Sweeney has voiced opposition to this as he stated it will hurt Atlantic City and do irreparable harm.
Christie also saw that the VLTs could hurt AC. The time frame for instituting these machines at the racetracks has come and gone. I don't know if sports wagering will get the ok in NJ but if Drazin keeps fighting for its approval maybe it will come to fruition in one form or another.

Screw AC. Why is it that city has been able to hold "most favored nation" status.
Newsflash. it is OVER for AC.
The luster has turned to tarnish.
I am sick and tired of reading/hearing cries for the resurrection of AC. Why?
How dead does the place have to be before the Doc makes the declaration.
My guess is this has to do with the fact with the employees in AC being unionized( another gigantic mistake) and of course one side of the aisle being in bed with labor unions.
New jersey is such dire fiscal trouble, and the state and in some instances voters keep shooting themselves in the foot by making things worse.

[thespaah]

I admit, I could never see a thread like this coming in the wake of what happened in Vegas...what's the opposite of BRAVO!?!?

I am scratching my head as well.
I'm not seeing the great leap.

[thespaah]

Well, it's not that simple. Should you be able to bet on the Presidential election? They do in the UK, but it's illegal here.

Should you be able to bet on the performance of very small companies with unregistered securities? It's possible, but its made very difficult by securities regulations.

There isn't a constitutional right to bet, and for good reason. "Gambling" involves a lot of activities that create significant regulatory issues.

And problem gambling is one of those issues. To give an example of a ban I agree with, I don't think that online slot machines are something that should be legalized. If someone really wants to play the slots, requiring the person to get out to a casino is a reasonable requirement. It cuts losses, it gives people time to reflect, and it probably, overall, reduces the amount of problem gambling while still preserving some freedom to bet on spinning reels.

It's just something you should always keep in mind. We don't live in a fully libertarian society, we can't, we won't, and we shouldn't. Government has a role in making certain stuff harder to do, and it has that role because certain stuff SHOULD be harder to do.

That is pleading for government to save people from themselves. I object to it 100%
And actually government DOES NOT have the constitutional authority to reach your theory.
There are laws and regulations in existence that make it illegal for one person or a group to victimize or cause harm to an individual or group.
There should never be law that mandates behavior so that we must be protected from ourselves.
Yours is nanny state law and order liberalism.
In summary "We live in fear. Let us petition government to ban this".
Oh, this is not a discussion. I have stated my piece. No further response will be posted.
Done

[thespaah]

Let me explain something to you.

Your views wouldn't last past the second week of jurisprudence class in law school. We inherited a common law system from the British, which is specifically referenced in the Constitution (e.g., look at the Seventh Amendment). The "judicial power" of the United States is vested, by Article III of the Constitution, in a Supreme Court and any lower courts that Congress chooses to create, and the Supreme Court is vested with appellate jurisdiction over cases arising in the United States.

Thus, the way our system works, the way the framers intended it to work, is that the courts interpret the Constitution consistent with common law principles. In other words, they develop doctrines which are then applied, cut back, and expanded in an iterative process over time.

That decisional law IS what the Constitution means. Just like it would make no sense to a devout Catholic to point to some provision of the Bible and say "this means we ignore the teachings and doctrines of Church elders and Popes", it makes zero sense for an ordinary citizen to point to some provision of the Constitution and say that Supreme Court decisions are "unconstitutional". Supreme Court decisions are, under Article VI of the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land".

The Constitution contains various provisions requiring uniformity of certain sorts of laws, but those provisions are interpreted in a limited manner, because just about every piece of major federal legislation contains some provisions that benefit certain states at the expense of others. Those decisions resulted from a court attempting to square the text of the Constitution with practical legislative experience, to create workable doctrine, which is what the common law system demands the Court do. If the Court is way off, a political party can convince the voters to put it into power and appoint new justices, or you can amend the Constitution. But this is the Court's job, and the views of private citizens about what the words of the Constitution mean are completely irrelevant to the task of formulating doctrine. The statement "the Supreme Court violated the Constitution", made by a private citizen, basically has no meaning and no importance under our system.

Do I agree with everything the Court has said or done on favoritism of states? Not at all. I think some of it is quite wrong. But it's not unconstitutional. Far from it-- it's a totally plausible action, taken by the branch of government that has the power to promulgate legal doctrines, to reconcile constitutional text with what we know about the legislative process. And it's a totally reasonable conclusoin, though not the only reasonable conclusion, to hold that Congress can limit sports betting to Nevada. Both conclusions are reasonable under current doctrine, which is why the Court has this case.
""the supreme law of the land".
You interpret this as an absolute. That is neither true nor accurate.
For your premise as to the above to work, it would mean SCOTUS has the ability to "legislate from the bench".
As you know this is not true and is in direct conflict with the concept of "three independent, equal branches of government".
That said. SCOTUS rulings never have nor legally can they preclude The Congress from revisiting laws struck down by SCOTUS and rewriting them for passage.
With regard to the issue of the Constitution, I theorize that in Roe V Wade, the SCOTUS over stepped its authority in that it A) "found" an absolute right to privacy. B) by making a sweeping ruling usurped the Tenth Amendment's States Rights provision.
SCOTUS should have respected the 10th and sent the case back to the individual States.
There are mountains of evidence and laws which validate this theory.
For example. I can make a wager on horse racing in New York, but I cannot make one legally in North Carolina.
Conversely. I North Carolina I can go to a store, fill out forms and upon passage of a background check, can purchase a legal firearm and if I so desire can carry it concealed in public.
I am barred by law from using MY carry permit in New York.
If questioned by lqaw enforcement, my concealed carry permit is bupkis in New York. I can be arrested and incarcerated for doing something in one state something perfectly legal, and barred by law in another.

[thespaah]

My take on this.....I want SCOTUS to rule against NJ.
Why? Because I theorize that if SCOTUS heads down that road, the decision must apply to ALL 50 states. Meaning, it is possible that Nevada's granfather status is deemed null and void.
After all, the 14th Amendment has a provision that guarantees "equal protection under the law".
So if New jersey is told it cannot do what other states are permitted to do, then NO state can be permitted to do so.
Imagine if Nevada law was struck down by such a ruling.
It would certainly give Congress some work to do.
And may result in the hodgepodge of state anti gambling statutes coming to an end.No flaming please. Alternate theories are most welcome.

[biggestal99]

My thoughts since someone asked is that it will be a narrow opinion for New Jersey, allowing them to repeal their laws but upholding PASPA as constitutional.

That is basically status quo. States that want to and have the votes to do it, will be able to offer sports betting. Those states not inclined will still have a sports betting prohibition.

Allan

[biggestal99]

There should never be law that mandates behavior so that we must be protected from ourselves.
Yours is nanny state law and order liberalism.


It's not just liberals who want a nanny state but social conservatives too.

No 18+ porn.

Banning books from libraries.

No weed in the privacy of your own home.

Sodomy laws.

No same sex marriage.


Lets face it

Nanny state libs and social cons are the two sides of the same coin.

Allan

[cj]

No politics in the horse racing section unless they concern horse racing. Too much thread drift here.