Wanna bet..?

[woolster22]

So what happens when gambling is widespread, the biggest league in the country decides to change the rules re replay in the largest televised event of the year, and then one of their vp of Goodell ball washing slips up and acknowledges the changed standards?

 

[mgteich]

If there is one thing Massachusetts politicians like, it's their money. This is a potential new stream of revenue so it will probably be legal in MA eventually, although MA is not quite as ready to go as a couple other nearby states like NY and NJ.

from yahoo
For others, buckle up. In anticipation of this ruling, six states have already passed legislation on the legalization of sports wagering: Connecticut, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Those could get up and running in a matter of weeks, however it’s possible the feds will step in to pump the brakes, at least for a little while. States would need to adjust accordingly.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

SMH at the lame attempt to make this a partisan issue when it really isn't.

Lest we let facts get in the way, Conservatives are the ones who tend to value states-rights. The 2 dissenters on today's SCOTUS opinion were the 2 hardcore liberals: RBG and Sotomayor. So it was conservatives responsible for today's ruling.

The conservatives along w Breyer and Kagan, both of whom are liberal as well. This is one of the few that isn't a partisan issue....

 

[lurker1965]

Um, so the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL never before had guys with no necks trying to fix games to beat Vegas before and need extra "INTEGRITY" fees... um, How stupid do they think I am?

 

[XLIX]

from yahoo
For others, buckle up. In anticipation of this ruling, six states have already passed legislation on the legalization of sports wagering: Connecticut, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Those could get up and running in a matter of weeks, however it’s possible the feds will step in to pump the brakes, at least for a little while. States would need to adjust accordingly.

I just don't see the federal government jumping in here, at least not for quite some time. So many states wanted this ruling to go the way it did that I don't see their representatives in Congress trying to upend it.

 

[XLIX]

However, the decision does note that Congress is completely within its powers to regulate or ban sports gambling directly.

I just don't see any way a ban happens. Society just isn't opposed to gambling the way it was 25 years ago. Back then casino gambling was the purview of Vegas and Atlantic City exclusively (by "casino gambling" I mean things like slots, table games, poker). Now casinos are everywhere.

As for regulation.... well, politicians do tend to butt in where they are not needed, but I don't see any major overhaul of our new status quo. We could easily see a dozen states (or more) offering action as soon as Super Bowl 53.

 

[lancerman]

To be pendantic (this is the internet, after all ) the law that was struck down today didn't make sports gambling illegal but rather prohibited states from passing laws to make sports gambling legal. SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that this was unconstitutional under the "anti-commandeering" doctrine that has developed from the 10th Amendment. This frees states to legalize sports gambling and also allows pre-existing legalization laws to take immediate effect.

However, the decision does note that Congress is completely within its powers to regulate or ban sports gambling directly. It just can't do so by telling states that they can't legalize sports gambling.

So we'll have to see what, if anything, the lobbyists on all sides get Congress to pass.

If state's start legalizing it right away it won't matter. No state getting serious revenue from it is going to have any shot of their reps and senators voting to veto it. It'll get tied up in a filibuster. And I don't see anyway the current admin signs a bill like that. So it's got a couple years to get sticky. And soon other states will see states like NY and NJ get rich off it and they'll want in.

 

[catent]

SMH at the lame attempt to make this a partisan issue when it really isn't.

Lest we let facts get in the way, Conservatives are the ones who tend to value states-rights. The 2 dissenters on today's SCOTUS opinion were the 2 hardcore liberals: RBG and Sotomayor. So it was conservatives responsible for today's ruling.

I assume you missed the post but it was made a "partisan issue" via the fifth post in the thread by FCB. That's where the partisan angle started, not with mcmurtry.

 

[maineman209]

SMH at the lame attempt to make this a partisan issue when it really isn't.

Lest we let facts get in the way, Conservatives are the ones who tend to value states-rights. The 2 dissenters on today's SCOTUS opinion were the 2 hardcore liberals: RBG and Sotomayor. So it was conservatives responsible for today's ruling.

As a non-partisan observer of the "National Politics League", I didn't view that comment as particularly partisan. It seemed mostly like merely an accurate recitation of what's happened in the past. The part of your comment about who voted which way in this decision is also correct.

The fact is that, over the course of time, both parties have leveraged the "states' rights" argument at one point or another when it served an item on their agenda at a particular moment, and both parties have opposed "state's rights" or simply ignored it when it didn't serve them. Both parties have alternately played the "moral high ground" card or the "freedom" card when it served their interests, especially in debates about "vices" like sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, gambling, etc.

Frankly, my biggest personal concern about this is that it may ultimately result in providing the airheads in the broadcast booth of NFL games even more to endlessly blather about instead of paying attention to the game, and provide even more opportunities for broadcast producers to clutter screen real-estate with "clever" graphics and scrolling feeds.

 

[Jackson 2]

Around this place, a decision on whether to punt or go for it on fourth down can be turned into a partisan issue in under 1.3 seconds...

 

[Joker]

"here's your breeders guide...1 dollar for one book or 4 books for 5 bucks..."

 

[mgteich]

Around this place, a decision on whether to punt or go for it on fourth down can be turned into a partisan issue in under 1.3 seconds...

Curiously, this is one of the effects of the court case. It is betting WITHIN the game that accounts for the vast majority of betting.

If this model comes to the US, we would be watching live, and using our phones (or perhaps smart TV's) to bet on whether the patriots punt or not.

 

[XLIX]

An anti-gabbing bill won't pass. The issue is taxation and regulation. If the state wants money, then the politicians will need to agree.

Oh I agree, gambling is here to stay in MA. And I think sooner or later sports gambling will be here to stay too, although MA wasn’t quite as ready as some of the other states, so IMHO, you’ll need to go to Mohegan for action this season (and even *that* might potentially fall through this year).

 

[Froob]

Why is this a big deal? Been gambling online for sometime.

 

[Adam Seward]

The second coming of FourierSeries?

You need to understand, he is the only person who watched all the tape and took the best notes.

 

[maust]

You need to understand, he is the only person who watched all the tape and took the best notes.

I've always found it confusing that the net is full of guys who are the 'only' ones who watch all the tape and 'get it'...

 

[Ring 6]

I’ve always thought it was hypocritical that states make billions on lotteries, and you can literally walk into a convenience store and see a person spending more than they can afford on a daily number that has a 1 in 1000 chance to hit, and pays $600 when it does, yet they will not allow gambling in their state.

And the first thing that happens now after the decision is that the state governments get into sports betting.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Why is this a big deal? Been gambling online for sometime.

It being legal means you actually have legal recourse if the site/bookie rips you off. And not potentially committing a state crime (no federal crime, as neither PASPA nor UEGA made bettor actions federally illegal).

 

[BobDigital]

I can't wait to start making a living gambling online! No way that won't work.

 

[fnordcircle]

I can't wait to start making a living gambling online! No way that won't work.

Well I guess you won that non-existent debate about whether or not people should quit their jobs to gamble online that nobody was having.