|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
08-11-2016, 11:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
After this, the only other option is SCOTUS and it's unlikely they would even hear that case since the appelate court upheld a federal law. I don't think there is much momentum to alter that law at the federal level, since all the sports organizations are opposed.
When you think of it, legalizing betting on pro sports is not going to do the leagues any good. People bet on it now and it drives TV ratings. It would be a headache for them. States were given an option in that law to opt in and only 2 or 3 did, besides Nevada. I know Delaware only got NFL parlays out of it. You have to bet 3 wagers in a bet, like the old bookie bar cards. Sad for the horse industry and Denis Drazin. They've worked really hard with the best interests of the NJ horse industry involved. Their best option is to try and get a % of any new casino via a voted referendum. Worth a shot. 
|
|
#2
08-12-2016, 05:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
06-27-2017, 10:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Supreme Court will hear N.J. appeal to allow sports betting
By Matt Hegarty The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Tuesday that it will hear an appeal by the state of New Jersey in its bid to legalize sports betting within its borders. The decision will allow New Jersey to argue that its attempts to allow betting on sports does not violate a federal law that sought to stop the spread of legal sports gambling. New Jersey’s executive branch and its legislature have devised multiple strategies to allow sports betting over the past several years, but lower courts have struck down the plans, ruling in favor of a coalition of professional and amateur sports leagues that had objected. Legalized sports wagering in New Jersey has been supported by Monmouth Park, which is operated by the state’s horsemen under a lease from the state. The plans allowing for sports betting have tabbed Monmouth Park as one of the sites where sports wagers could be placed, along with Atlantic City’s struggling casinos. The court will hear the appeal during its fall session. Briefs are scheduled to be filed in August. Single-game wagering is generally prohibited under a federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which was passed in 1992. The legislation included several exceptions, including an allowance for sports betting in Nevada and three other states that had already authorized limited wagering on sports contests.
__________________
All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or credulities of mankind. ~ Joseph Conrad A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. ~ Thomas Paine Don't let anyone tell you that your dreams can't come true. They are only afraid that theirs won't and yours will. ~ Robert Evans The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984.
|
|
#5
06-28-2017, 09:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
07-11-2017, 06:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.northjersey.com/story/opi...ing/463080001/
With the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to review New Jersey’s sports betting case, the state has finally reached the metaphorical Super Bowl in its years-long effort to legalize sports betting. New Jersey has been trying to reform its own outdated sports betting laws that its citizens no longer want. These laws have harmed the state’s economy and have created a large black market. But a little-known federal law has repeatedly frustrated the state’s effort to get rid of the state's old laws. In 2011, New Jersey voters decided—by a lopsided margin of nearly 2 to 1—to amend their state constitution to encourage the Legislature to pursue sports betting reform. For good reason, prohibitions haven’t worked. Instead, they have created a massive black market with more than $100 billion pouring into illegal operations. Even former President Barack Obama has bragged about violating these arcane laws, during an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” When the host pointed out that sports betting is illegal, Obama laughed it off, explaining that, as president, he would just pardon himself. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the federal law at issue in New Jersey’s case, does not forbid sports betting as a matter of federal law. Instead, PASPA forbids states from authorizing sports betting, which federal courts have interpreted to force New Jersey and other states to maintain their preexisting bans. Since 2011, New Jersey has been trying to reform its laws but has been stymied by PASPA at every turn. First, it replaced its prohibitions with state licensing and regulation, only to have the Third Circuit strike down that reform and the Supreme Court to decline review. Its second effort to reform its laws, the reform that the Supreme Court will now review, partially repeals the state’s own prohibitions. Although the stakes for New Jersey are huge, they’re even bigger for the Constitution. A loss for New Jersey would fundamentally change the relationship between the states and the federal government. One of the Constitution’s most venerable principles is federalism, which divides power between two levels of government – state and federal – to counteract each other and ensure that neither becomes so powerful that they threaten individual liberty. To maintain that balance, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot dictate that states implement particular policies; it cannot “commandeer” them, as the court put it. The Third Circuit’s decision upholding PASPA undermines that core constitutional protection by drawing a facile distinction between the federal government forcing a state to implement a policy in the first instance and forcing a state to maintain a policy that it has previously implemented, even if the state subsequently rejects the policy. That unprecedented exception to the Supreme Court’s commandeering cases threatens to undermine a wide variety of laws. On many issues, the federal government and states work together through a practice known as cooperative federalism. This voluntary arrangement allows Congress to pursue its goals more efficiently and cheaper and, because states must be induced to participate, it gives them influence in how federal policies are set. But what state would participate if, once it initially agreed to a policy, Congress could pass a law binding it to the federal policy forever? A Supreme Court decision upholding PASPA would also be a threat to political accountability. If federal officials can force states to implement unpopular policies, they can escape political accountability for their decisions. Voters will understandably blame state officials for unpopular, costly, or boneheaded policies enacted and enforced by them, not realizing that, like New Jersey with its gambling laws, states are powerless to change anything. Although it's difficult to handicap Supreme Court cases, there are significant signs that New Jersey is the favorite. Earlier this year, before Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed, the court asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the case, a move that required at least four justices to express interest in the case. Their interest was apparently not muted by the administration asking the court not to take the case, as at least four justices voted to grant it anyway. With four justices already interested, if Justice Gorsuch is as committed to federalism as he is widely expected to be, this case could end up being a big win for both New Jersey and the Constitution. Last edited by Kasept : 07-11-2017 at 06:31 AM.
|
|
#7
07-31-2017, 10:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
N.J. will win this!
__________________
Support your local Re-run or horse rescue organization. https://www.rerunottb.com/:)
|
Hybrid Mode
