That political cartoon looks like something Charles Manson would paint.

Every time someone posts one of these I think "ok, this is TOO dumb, I get it, someone finally parodied this guy" but no, every time it's really him.

May look into it later. The little snippet I heard was that majority found the prohibition unconstitutionally vague. Liberals in general give more deference to federal powers and it struck down a federal prohibition of a state activity. The majority probably held in a way that won't impede the federal government from regulating things like marijuana. I doubt it has anything to do with gambling per se, just the line between state and federal regulation.

oh my jesus

IANAL and haven't read the opinions, but the account I read was that they disagreed with overturning the law in its entirety. They joined with the majority in deeming that the portion of the law which forbade states from legalizing sports betting was unconstitutional "commandeering", but they held that other portions of the law were constitutional and should be preserved. Source:

So it was more a disagreement over the action the Court should take than a disagreement over law. All of the justices are in agreement that the "commandeering" is unconstitutional and, as far as I understand it, all of them agree that the Federal Government can simply ban sports betting and enforce the ban using its own authority. It's legal to say to the states "your sports betting laws are overridden by federal law, which says it's illegal", but not "we command you to ban sports betting yourself and enforce the ban". Whether the Feds actually do try to ban it, we'll see. It's a bit like the marijuana situation.

Orrin's on it

Mason: this is why you should vote Republican. Because argle bargle.

Seems likely Hatch's bill, or something similar, will be passed. The question is if there's the political will to enforce it if states ignore it.

The British Medical Journal has published an editorial calling for across-the-board decriminalization of drugs.

Sure. Ok.

If states wanted to override the federal government on sports betting they've had 25ish years to try it, no?

Will Melania be added to the who won't survive poll?

No, because the federal law prohibited them from, quote, "authorizing by law" sports betting. So if state legislators passed laws allowing sports betting, they would themselves be guilty of federal crimes. As it is now, just like marijuana, they can pass laws stating that sports betting is legal under state law and that they DGAF if people want to violate federal law in their jurisdiction, then sit back and let free enterprise do its thing.

Edit: tbh, I'm not sure if legislators would be guilty of a crime, or whether it's just that gambling would stay illegal under state law because the legislation would be ineffective.

It should be noted that during the campaign, Trump said that he supported allowing sports betting. However, you guys may be aware that there have been one or two or maybe more like 100,000 isolated incidences of Trump talking complete bull****. Still, it's not impossible that Trump might veto Hatch's bill. Legalized sports betting is mildly popular (55% in favor in a recent poll), so Trump might smell an opportunity to look Strong and Decisive.

I want nothing more and need nothing less.

Yeah this is not how it works. Here is the simplest way to break it down:

1. State passes law that seemingly contradicts federal law.
2. Either law is challenged in court.
3. The court decides the law(s) legality and whether it (they) can coexist and/or constitutionality. There are a ton of factors at play here that you can feel free to go to law school to learn.
4. If a state law is found to be unconstitutional or in violation of federal law, it's no longer valid and the federal law still controls. If the federal law is found unconstitutional (as PASPA was), it's no longer valid and the state law takes full effect.

No one goes to jail. Until something is done by a court, both laws can be technically valid and enforced (see marijuana law).

I know someone who manages a dispensary in LA. She has had her place raided countless times and was close to being charged with a felony. Going to jail is a very real fear.

Of course. "No one goes to jail" was referring to the idea that state lawmakers themselves would go to jail for passing a law that was in conflict with federal law.

Charlottesville Survivors Marry

this is great

Man, nothing gets cp more energized than a massacre of brown people. It’s legitimately disturbing to read.

Everything I've read on here about CP over the years leads me to believe that it's nothing more than an alt-right hate site.

I think they also discuss football

the target demographic is virtually the same. uneducated washed up white dudes from rural nowhereville usa

Do they know they've been used by us as a deplorable sample for years?

Again - when I say Chiefsplanet - I always mean the DC forum. Which is like this place is to 2p2, except overrun by deplorables instead of libtards. Think this forum in 2008 when it was overrun by dorm-room ACists. But replace with gun-fellating goateed 50-year-old anger bears.

From time to time politics will break out in the main forum where the political makeup is much more reasonable.

The standard arc is:

1. Something goes mainstream enough for a thread in the main forum
2. Deplorables get wafflecrushed by normal people, start screaming
3. Thread gets moved to DC where the deplorables regroup and the normies never tread
4. Deplorables shout for a few pages then declare victory

That said - there are a surprising number of libtards in the DC forum keeping up the good fight - in way more numbers, volume and intensity than the sporadic adios's/Ins0's/rara's on this forum. Just spitballing here, but it might help to have actual facts and logical consistency on your side.

I still remember the moment I discovered the DC forum and the sinking feeling that I had opened a portal to some place I wish I'd never seen.