Jump to content

Sports Betting


TahoeHorn

Recommended Posts

Nah, man( Relapse,) I wasn't disputing your responses.  More of a rhetorical question on my part.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DanRydell said:

 


This decision just requires them to do it directly rather than ordering states to do it.

 

My Holiday Inn Express constitutional law expertise says this is the correct decision. 

I think it's right for much more than gambling.  I wouldn't let the Feds dictate a 55 mph speed limit.  If they want a 55 mph speed limit they need to use federal marshals and federal courts.  Telling the states to have, and enforce, a law isn't right.  We should have state laws and federal laws, but not state laws dictated by the Feds.  Certainly state laws should not be in conflict with federal laws, but I don't think it's right to have a "joint" law.  But if I'm missing something, tell me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

I wouldn't let the Feds dictate a 55 mph speed limit.

We should have state laws and federal laws, but not state laws dictated by the Feds.

If you recall, the states weren't directly told "You must have a 55 mph speed limit", it was just that to receive federal highway funding, they had to have a 55 mph limit.

I think that one is a little different than "You cannot allow sports betting" in that there was no carrot with the gambling, it was all stick. The 55mph had a carrot and stick, the states didn't have to have a 55mph speed limit and they didn't have to receive federal highway funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

If you recall, the states weren't directly told "You must have a 55 mph speed limit", it was just that to receive federal highway funding, they had to have a 55 mph limit.

I think that one is a little different than "You cannot allow sports betting" in that there was no carrot with the gambling, it was all stick. The 55mph had a carrot and stick, the states didn't have to have a 55mph speed limit and they didn't have to receive federal highway funding.

I do remember that.  Can the Feds say that a state must fully support the enforcement of immigration laws in order to receive federal funds for, say, MedicAid?  What kind of extortion is legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I do remember that.  Can the Feds say that a state must fully support the enforcement of immigration laws in order to receive federal funds for, say, MedicAid?  What kind of extortion is legal? 

Not sure. At least in the 55 example, highway funds and.. highway speed limit are sort of related.

Medicaid and illegal immigration are related only in that both involve humans and the immigrants may receive medicaid but I wouldn't say they aren't as directly related as the previous example. And the states (I'm just stating what we all know) are the ones that allowed themselves to get into this mess where the feds can hold the carrot of funding out. They'll have to be the ones that want to get out of it, but since the example was from 45 years ago, they seem to be a bit slow to get out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Brothahorn said:

What about Galveston?

I would love a casino in Galveston, as opposed to traveling to that shitty state next door.

Still a bit too close for my liking. Speaking from a strictly selfish place. Galveston is close enough that a couple day beers on a Saturday lead into a 45 minute uber drive and re-discovering my daily withdraw limits. 

I tend to have self control issues when I'm around blackjack tables and am properly imbibed. That's why I like planning my visits to Vegas and/or Lake Chuck. It's more of a controlled chaos.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Adam Siver can get fucked trying to collect a Royalty from all wagers. It’s part of what makes your sport popular and if the NBA were gone tomorrow there would still be gambling. What a greedy fucker. 

Seriously.  He is working directly with lawmakers which means he is probably trying to implement a system in which the taker of the bet escrows 1% of the bet and hands it back to the NBA.  So not only will the NBA get a vig, the taker of the bet will have increased costs to handle the money.  Which I would guess would be passed through to the gambler in the form of a lesser payout.  That means either lines will be compressed or people will slow down on gambling because the risk/reward correlation is jacked up.

What shocks me the most is that the NBA is going to have to "gear up" for people to bet on their sport.  They cite increasing costs because of the gambling measures.  It sounds to me like they are saying "we need to get our shit in order because everyone knows that we are steps away from being the WWE.  We need to make sure our games are actual games now."  It would be interesting to see gambling start and then someone file a suit against the NBA alleging they influence games.  Then get every doc out there via discovery to see if they influence any art of the game (cough* draft cough*).  You would think the NBA would love gambling to be legal to increase interest in the games.  You would think they would want to stay as far away as possible from being directly involved because of guys like Tim Donoghey (sp?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...