US Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Law Prohibiting Sports Gambling

This is a big win for federalism, as embodied in the 10th Amendment to the US constitution, for the State of New Jersey, and for Chris Christie:

Supreme Court strikes down sports betting law, giving states go-ahead to allow betting https://es.pn/2KkbH06

As a major fan of the 10th Amendment, I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision. It’s basically similar to the rationale underlying Roe v. Wade.

Again missing the point Captain. I said a similar rationale- I never opined on the specific legal basis of Roe v. Wade but rather the end result, which is the same: State has the right to legislate on abortion, State has the right to legislate on sports gambling. Your post came out of the inner recesses of your ass and not out of anything I said. Roe v. Wade has long been viewed as an example of the Supreme Court upholding the principle of federalism and if you had even a whiff of legal education you would know this.

Although it struck down a State law prohibiting abortion on 14th amendment grounds, it reiterated that States can regulate abortions based on the term of the pregnancy. Effectively, no federal abortion rights were created (the subsequent decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey eliminated the trimester analysis), although a privacy right was recognized as being infringed. The end result goes back to the 10th amendment. And the preemption doctrine. The reason the Texas law got struck down was due to being violative of the 14th amendment. Texas was allowed to continue regulating abortions, however, and still does, based on the 10th amendment. That is the bottom line. So, it is in fact a similar rationale: there is no federal right, to either have or prohibit abortion in all circumstances, or to sports gamble or prohibit sports gambling in all circumstances. The States get to legislate and regulate in these areas.

CaptRenault said:

Some would argue that the 10th Amendment could serve as a basis for leaving the abortion question to the states.

Click to expand...

Uh, it was left to the States. The federal government does not regulate abortions. Have you ever read Roe v. Wade??????? Most states have legislated legal abortions out of existence without running afoul of Roe v Wade. All the Court did was give the States a roadmap for regulation, a roadmap that was later updated. Just because there is no blanket ban doesn’t mean the States have not figured out ways to restrict abortions without running afoul of Roe v. Wade as modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to make them available only in extremely limited circumstances.

States cannot ban abortions, but they can place such restrictions on them as to make them impossible to obtain for the people who realistically should have an abortion of an unwanted child that is only going to be a ward of the State. That is the reality. If you actually read the decisions I alluded to, especially the “undue burden” standard (which the States get to decide what that is), and look at what States have done to regulate abortion, Roe v. Wade as a practical matter changed very little. Rich people who can pay for abortions can get them- they could get them before Roe v. Wade and can get them now. The people who really need abortions or should have abortions have, depending on the State they live in, significant restrictions in doing so. The bottom line is that while States cannot ban they can onerously restrict, and most have done so. I pay attention to what is actually happening as opposed to what everyone assumes is not happening.

My constitutional law professor said about this (and other) decisions, "don't watch what they say. Watch what they do." What he meant was the practical import of the decision after the smoke cleared on all the constitutional rhetoric.

CaptRenault said:

the SCOTUS has decided that a woman has a fundamental constitutional right to abortion under the implied right to privacy supposedly found in the 14th Amendment (though the word "privacy" is nowhere in the Constitution).

Click to expand...

This is an incorrect statement of law. There does not have to be "privacy" spelled out in the Constitution if the US Supreme Court already held that there was such a privacy right. This is called the principle of stare decisis. The US Supreme Court in fact held that there was such a privacy right in Griswold v Connecticut, decided 8 years earlier, and once that precedent was established, the US Supreme Court was bound to follow it based on the principle of stare decisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

"Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Douglas wrote, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Thus the Court in Roe v. Wade was compelled to follow this precedent and did so correctly. They in effect followed the concurring opinions of Justices White and Harlan in Griswold, rather than Goldberg (9th Amendment) or Douglas (5th Amendment). That case is a landmark decision taught in every constitutional law class, and is also notable as the greatest legal case precedent that ever came out of the State of Connecticut.

No new rights were created by Roe v. Wade. The same privacy right that was found in Griswold, was recognized to apply in Roe v. Wade. It really has nothing to do with abortions, per se. But rather freedom from unwarranted governmental intrusions into personal privacy. In case you did not know, that is what the Bill of Rights is all about and was written to address in the first place.

CaptRenault said:

Would you care to elaborate on the idea of "...the people who realistically should have an abortion of an unwanted child that is only going to be a ward of the State." [/SIZE]

Click to expand...

This goes back to my point about the 10th amendment and why this regulation has been left to the States. Abortion may be feasible or even desirable when a woman is raped, or has a pregnancy that is unwanted and unforeseen and also imposes a financial burden on her that she cannot shoulder. In such instances, the child that is born will likely be a ward of the State supported by you and other taxpayers who pay for Medicaid and other State aid programs for such an aid-dependent child. Removing the impediments to abortions in such a situation honors the wishes of the mother, and eases the burden on the State. Seemingly a win-win situation and one that the States should have the right to legislate on. The government in such a situation should not be restricting abortions and should be able to remove the impediments if they wish. If not, then you and the other taxpayers will pay for the child's welfare and will act as surrogate parents.

Americans don’t want to adopt American children. I know a few people who have adopted children and they went to Russia and Europe to do so. They spent a small fortune as well. It would be nice if there were loving adopted parents for every unwanted child, but it’s not a reality nor close to one. I know an attorney who is specialized in juvenile law and advocating for children who have been taken away from their parents by the State due to abuse, neglect, living in horrid conditions and authorities were called by neighbors. What ends up happening to those kids is almost never a happy ending. In most of those cases the expedient of abortion would have saved the child from a miserable existence, and the State authorities from the burden of being Ward to an unwanted child. There is way too much of this that people do not see because they ride on high horses into their cloistered and comfortable suburban homes, where they avert their eyes from the realities of what’s going on in the streets. People like you, the cloistered ones, do not smell the coffee because they never were in a coffee house.

You will see it at the Connecticut Casinos (Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods), for sure. They are immune from State legislation as they are sovereign Native American nations with their own constitutions, and civil laws (including torts law, employment law and civil procedure). With the exception of the State penal code, Connecticut cannot regulate or interfere with anything that happens on those reservations (in exchange Connecticut gets a 25% cut on the slots). My guess is that as between those two nations, it happens with the Mohegan Tribe first, because they are already playing MANY college and WNBA basketball games in that arena and I believe the Celtics have played some exhibition games there as well. It's a smallish but high quality sports and concert arena venue. I saw UConn play a game there last year. Good acoustics.

Delaware Could Be The First

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/23533292/delaware-poised-authorize-sports-gaming-state-says