I haven’t been following this much but it sounds like NJ might finally get sports betting. Does anyone know if the OTB locations will also offer it?
OT: NJ sports betting
- Thread starter needmorecowbell
- Start date
The Supreme Court is releasing opinions at 10am today, and the sports gambling case may be among them.
Stay tuned.....
Stay tuned.....
Monmouth Park has constructed a full-fledged sportsbook that is expected to be open for business within two weeks of the ruling.
The ruling on this case will not come today, though. Court released three other opinions this morning. SCOTUS watchers think more opinions may come Monday.
The ruling on this case will not come today, though. Court released three other opinions this morning. SCOTUS watchers think more opinions may come Monday.
So the Supreme Court released decisions on 3 cases today, none of which were the NJ sports gambling case. The next possible date for a decision is April 30. But according to "industry insiders", they feel the decision might not come until toward the end of June, before the Supreme Court's term ends the final week of the month. So the wait goes on....
The longer the wait, the more the likelihood that the Court is sharply divided on the question. It is conceivable that the Court may want reargument in the next term, but that is highly unusual, especially because the Court has its full complement of nine justices.
The smart money after oral argument thought that the ban on sports gambling would be struck down, but we won't know until the Court actually decides the case.
The smart money after oral argument thought that the ban on sports gambling would be struck down, but we won't know until the Court actually decides the case.
I'm betting (pun intended) on a last week of June decision. scotusblog is a lot of fun that week.
It's clear in the Constitution, NJ gotta do whatever Bill Bradley decrees forever.
I thought this was basically a done deal. But now it’s looking like it’s not?
It will save Monmouth Park and AC. Hope it goes through.
It will save Monmouth Park and AC. Hope it goes through.
A judicial decision, much less a Supreme Court decision, is never a done deal until the court announces its judgment. Things still look good for NJ, based on what happened at oral arguments, but you can't take that to the bank.
Does Monmouth also have plans for a weed room? MIght as well suck in every tax dollar we can from the same facility.$$$$
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules PAPSA unconstutional.
——from scotusblog......
——from scotusblog......
- So if I’m understating this correctly the net effect of Murphy is a win for gambling and a win for states rights?
- Share
- Likes0
- a minute ago
PASPA is the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.- Share
- Likes0
- a minute ago
Here is a link to the decision in Murphy v. NCAA. Amy will have our analysis.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
- Share
- Likes0
- a minute ago
"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."- Share
- Likes0
- 2 minutes ago
Court says that legalization "of sports gambling is a controversial subject" that "requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make."- Share
- Likes0
- 3 minutes ago
We have Murphy v. NCAA, from Alito. The decision of the Third Circuit is reversed.g..
- So if I’m understating this correctly the net effect of Murphy is a win for gambling and a win for states rights?
- Share
- Likes0
- a minute ago
PASPA is the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.- Share
- Likes0
- a minute ago
Here is a link to the decision in Murphy v. NCAA. Amy will have our analysis.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
- Share
- Likes0
- a minute ago
"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."- Share
- Likes0
- 2 minutes ago
Court says that legalization "of sports gambling is a controversial subject" that "requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make."- Share
- Likes0
- 3 minutes ago
We have Murphy v. NCAA, from Alito. The decision of the Third Circuit is reversed.
Great job by Christie for pushing this issue and never giving up!
The central principle here is that the Federal government may not tell a State government what laws it must or must not make. This is the so-called "anticommandeering principle," under which the Federal government cannot force a State government to carry out a federal program. In general, Congress gets around this by saying, "regulate or we'll take away federal money," but even this idea has its limits. Nor did Congress do that in this case.
It's kind of a 6.5 to 2.5 decision, with Justice Breyer "concurring and dissenting." (That's unusual, but it does happen). Notice that the decision is mostly conservatives v. libs, but that Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, joins the conservatives.
Adelson was counting on Kagan's vote.I hope that he doesn't pull a Scalia on her.Sotomayor showed her true colors;backing the players in 1995,backing the owners in 2018.
Please explain that more - concurring and dissenting. Does that mean Breyer thinks the law is unconstitutional but for a different reason than the majority?
Last edited:
It means that the over/under line for how many judges would vote in favor of NJ was set at 6. Breyer had the over.
NJ wins!
Now all 50 states are legally allowed to have sports betting not just NV.
Now all 50 states are legally allowed to have sports betting not just NV.
Monmouth Park has been ready to take bets when this first started. I'm thinking by this weekend. It would be nice to have Christie place the first bet.
(Probably on ND or the Cowboys)
From this article https://www.playnj.com/news/nj-sports-betting-supreme-court-ruling/19650/ , within weeks:
Here's a New York Times story about the decision: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/...&nl=breaking-news&nlid=162067ing-news&ref=cta
You also have to give credit to the Democratic-majority state legislature for passing the bills necessary; Christie couldn't do this by himself.
I'll get back to you on that -- I'm running around right now.
FYI - that "contested" is supposed to be "unconstitutional". Thanks auto-correct!
Justice Breyer agreed with the majority that the statutory provision in question violates the Constitution. Then the question became whether the rest of the law is "severable"; that is, whether it can remain in place even though there is an unconstitutional provision in it. The majority thought the provision was not severable and so the rest of the statute had to fall; Justice Breyer thought it was severable,, and so agreed with the dissenters on that question. That's why he is a half-vote on each side.
Great news, especially since we won't need to argue about whether the Kansas game is a toss-up anymore. Those who are so sure that RU will blow out the Jayhawks will surely be liquidating their savings accounts to bet on the Scarlet Knights at the Borgata, right?
Man you really have a way of turning anything into a dig at Rutgers or Rutgers fans.
Pretty sure that means you’re a troll.
Our law prohibits betting on RU,SHU,and all of the smaller colleges.A decision with which I agree.
Nevada long ago eliminated the ban on betting UNLV and other in state schools. Banning bets on Rutgers will only result in one more reason for people not having a reason to follow Rutgers or watch their games .
Latest posts
-
***WAR ROOM: Latest Recruit Scoop and Team News on Rutgers Athletics***- Latest: RU-Choppin-Ohio
-
Football Things Rutgers submitted to EA Sports for the NCAA Video Game?
- Latest: Scarlet Shack
-
-
-
