Quote:
Originally Posted by niss
It sounds like the State has had the better of the argument, but I have little confidence in this judge to declare a statute unconstitutional.
It's hard to predict what a court/judge is going to do, after the ACA oral arguments I would have bet the individual mandate was toast given the questioning, but we know what happened there.
I'm not willing to bet on this one, but given the one question the judge asked after recess was exactly on the point Olsen was making - PASPA isn't gambling regulation it is State abrogation - I predict that Shipp has decided to rule PASPA unconstitutional.
His question was whether PASPA would preempt State regulation of sports betting, the DOJ bit hook line and sinker responding 'no one is arguing preemption'.
The problem with that answer is that the question implies that Shipp wanted to understand the DOJ's involvement in the case, are they defending a Federal ban on sports betting which is being ignored by New Jersey, or are they acting as no more than co-counsel for the private leagues?
If the DOJ isn't in the court room to enforce a preemptive Federal law, then this is merely private parties suing a State in Federal court, in violation of the 11th amendment.
The brilliance of Olsen is that he didn't even argue sovereign immunity, giving the leagues just enough line to take the bait in their 10th amendment justification, the leagues plainly said they didn't oppose sports betting, they only opposed State regulated sports betting.
So after a recess Shipp asked one question, essentially, 'What are you doing in my court room?' though the DOJ apparently didn't make that inference, Olsen led the judge to water and he drank, so I'll be ACA-like shocked (again) if he doesn't rule against the leagues.