
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Sports-Wagering Ban - uptown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-sports-wagering-ban
======
epmatsw
This is super interesting. Seems like the real ruling is that the federal
government can’t compel states to implement/enforce non-federal laws. I wonder
if that will affect things like the drinking age...

~~~
Eridrus
This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the
federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the
1992 law were told of this ruling they probably could have written a law that
achieved the desired results and not run afoul of this ruling.

~~~
Steel_Phoenix
That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in
whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional
restrictions on power.

It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks
something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed
fashion and get things working again.

~~~
Eridrus
I guess, my argument would be that the Supreme Court should look at "would a
law with this same intent/effect pass constitutional muster if written
differently? and how meaningful would the differences be".

Otherwise this is just a game of legal gotcha that gives more power to the
Supreme Court than it should really have.

~~~
Steel_Phoenix
And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that
would be a huge increase to their power. We can't have them just saying it's
fine because if it were different it would be fine. It does matter how it was
enacted and under whose authority. If we let that slide even a little bit,
we'll immediately have power struggles between competing authorities. I doubt
the people who wrote the law that is now being shot down would want the court
operating differently, though they might not like the decision.

~~~
Eridrus
> And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that
> would be a huge increase to their power.

But it is already up to the courts to interpret the law.

I really don't think it's a stretch to say "look, we think this law was
written poorly, but we think that this part of the law could have been written
just fine, so we're going to go with that".

~~~
Steel_Phoenix
I see what you're saying, and sometimes it happens that way, like Roberts
overlooking the discrepancy between tax and penalty in the Affordable Care
Act.

Writing sloppy laws is like writing sloppy code, it catches up with you, and
is tougher to fix the deeper it is. I wouldn't hire someone to write software
who said, "Look, I think this code was written poorly, but I think that this
part of the code could have been written just fine, so I'm going to just go
with that"

There is a difference between interpreting what the law would have intended
where an unforseen circumstance arises, and just reinterpreting it as fine
even though it has overstepped the authority. In this case, federal power was
overstepped in telling the states how to legislate.

------
Simulacra
I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t
using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per
day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the
objections or restrictions on sports betting. I never quite understood the
objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s
maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell
the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports
betting. Potential revenue for states, not to mention for some of the
gamblers, I think far outweighs the risks of abuse.

~~~
larrik
The laws aren't for protecting the gamblers, they are for protecting the
sport. The concern being that if gambling on sports is a real industry, then
the outcomes of the games may get artificially "adjusted" by nefarious
parties.

~~~
andr3w321
Billions are already wagered offshore on all major sports. Making it illegal
just makes it more difficult to protect the integrity of the game.

~~~
larrik
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the kind of thinking the US
government has historically used.

------
JohnJamesRambo
I know the NBA is very interested in making gambling happen and they have some
deep pockets to get it there and this is one of Adam Silver's main goals right
now. From my listening to NBA podcasts about it, and of interest to HN users
is that the NBA wants the technology to the point where people in the stands
can bet on their smartphones about things as granular as "will X player make a
three pointer on the next possession, etc."

~~~
ksherlock
The law is weird all around... the NBA originally supported it. It was
sponsored by NJ Senator/former NBA player Bill Bradley. It gave NJ a 1-year
window to legalize sports gambling and be grandfathered in... which they
declined to do at the time.

The NBA now supports it. Trump supported repealing it while campaigning but
the solicitor general opposed it at the supreme court...

------
8bitben
Can't wait for the flood of e-sports betting sites - could be a big market in
addition to the more traditional sports

~~~
oxide
The flood is already here. I can bet, with a credit card, on basically any
competitive game I can watch on Twitch. I have been for years now. I'm waiting
for regulation floods, not more sketchy sites.

------
widowlark
Would this affect the outcome for InTrade?

