Quote:
Originally Posted by tangled
The morality of sb has nothing to do with this.
NOTHING
And NJ would be foolish to get caught up in that argument. It is a red herring. Nobody is saying, under the modern interpretation of the Constitution, that the Feds don't have the power to ban sb. Instead, the argument is that they don't have the power to ban it for some states, but not for other states.
If sb betting is so horrible, then ban it for all states.
There is no way PASPA should survive, but knowing SCOTUS, I'm guessing it will.
The only reasonable argument that I can see, is that NJ was given a year under PASPA to pass a sb law. But that was over a generation ago. No way should NJ be held to that now. Times change.
Actually, pretty much everyone (including those who wrote PASPA) versed in Constitutional law accepts that Congress can't ban sports betting, even when there is an interstate nexus (Wire Act), they only ban the business of betting or wagering on sporting events.
PASPA doesn't ban sports betting, it bans States from authorizing new sports betting businesses, Congress enacted PASPA for primarily moral purposes, including “to stop the spread of State-sponsored sports gambling and to maintain the integrity of our national pastime.”
That is the rational basis for the legislation, so far from a red herring, NJ's primary challenge hinges on establishing that there is no rationality in that moral argument.
Since PASPA doesn't actually ban two people in NJ from betting on a sporting event, NJ's equal protection argument is entirely economic (freedoms aren't being infringed, but NJ can't license and tax sports books) which allows for no 'immediate' level of protection, meaning that the leagues (or DOJ if they join) don't have to show that the legislation accomplishes or is effective at achieving it's goal of protecting the leagues, they only need to establish that the goal itself is rational.
The leagues are saying that they are fine with people betting, but somehow new State regulated betting businesses would harm them, which seems preposterous on it's face, but they don't have to establish financial harm, only that expanded sports betting would harm their 'integrity'.
IMO the decision will come down to the Obama administration, which Governor Christie seemed to recognize in his pre-election Sandy butt-kissing tour, because if the DOJ joins with the leagues, PASPA will likely be upheld.
If the DOJ doesn't join, PASPA will likely suffer the fate of IGRA before it, where the high court found that the grant of standing to the tribes to sue States abrogated their sovereignty, and the 'national pastime' shouldn't be given more deference than Native Americans.