Supreme Court's Sports Betting Ruling

John Reid
Tuesday, May 15th
00:05:55

Transcript - Not for consumer use. Robot overlords only. Will not be accurate.

Let's talk to Michelle men tonight consumer regulation expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And get her reaction to the supreme court's ruling yesterday in favor of states. I'm making their own laws regarding sports betting Michelle how did this even come up I thought thought this was. Several years ago with the federal law that said that. Then everybody outside a Nevada could bat on. Exports. Yes that's always been for about 25 years that much to the chagrin of several they think especially New Jersey you know one of their biggest. Gambling capital of the US now they've been fighting for the last five or more years to overturn the federal law and this Monday they've finally exceeded. So what was wrong with this in 1992. Law that the Supreme Court felt. That it was appropriate to overturn it and and stood essentially send the issue back to the congress I guessed. Yet there are a lot of problems right from the start that a lot of people know that the Department of Justice said they didn't think it was constitutional. Back in the early nineties. Chuck Grassley said he didn't think it was constitutional because. I think that was. OK so a couple of states. Have some form of sports gambling but we don't want that to get any further. So we're gonna creep that weird law that says sports betting is illegal in the states. Only when it's cool when people are complying with state law basically this saying is it that they make illegal that's the only time a federally. Prohibited which broke the court looked at that I said. That's common hearing by any other name and commandeer a good idea that the federal government can certainly ban an activity that once you get on with other things in the past. However they cannot afford. State if the legislature the authority whatever to enforce federal policy. I'm so and that's what they were doing here thank New Jersey tried to overturn a ban that we don't work. We're not saying it. Perfectly legal or not encouraging it or thank you could no longer criminalized in casinos or racetracks. And sports league led by the NCAA in the NFL that hey hey you're violating the federal liar if we violating the spirit had a and Supreme Court got a chance to look at the entire thing I welcome the matter. It gave violated the spirit of the law or not it unconstitutional congress cannot count states that have to be found. No so what happens next does this go back to the congress and they can pass a new. Piece of legislation that would ban it. Across the board for all fifty states. It could do that I really don't see that ever know where we are with our culture now I mean it's if you look at and we gambling but are literally they're proliferated. I've been in 1980 you know back in the eighties even. People were changing their opinion on gambling on the morality of it wasn't so black white and now almost every state in the union has some form of gambling warn other really only Hawaii does not what they're talking about county court. I and so. The people who don't look at it the same way and I don't think. From the older members of congress like Orrin hatch it was. One of the initiator of the bill on the first place said he's gonna go back and try again I don't think it's gonna fly in the dating to actually let more important things going on. People's. Mores have changed some Misch momentum is with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in some of the stories and I was reading about it I was surprised that the NCAA. And the NFL and the NBA. Had back to the federal prohibition wired they so adamantly. Against this. Right yet between morality is is the justification for this almost nationwide ban for it excluded Nevada and a few other states. But the real hard at it and this is written in the legislation part of that was to protect the reputation. Of professional and amateur athletic. Because the idea that people are camera or not they might start wondering what we're gambling if somebody trying to pay off the players to be official to get them. Maybe garlic game and something that gamblers can make money. The funny thing is is that that type of corruption is only more likely in an illegal market economic watching. You with the legal market liked to have in Europe. I'm a gambling company because they lose money when Daimler expects to greed because batteries don't want to bet on sixteen. And didn't he make their money based on getting accurate shot so when that happens they lose money each in Europe. They work with the authority and they tell them and then they came from bankruptcy and they always they don't actually in 1990. It would began working you know right away that something with how bad it up before anybody else yeah. Did they have to come in and put some legislation to really hammer people should they decide should they find out that somebody's reading thanks from a practical standpoint do we. Anticipates seeing betting parlors popping up all over the place so. No I don't think so because I think because not that they are he had some form of gambling I think what you're gonna see the gambling regulatory sorry Derrick sort of rolling out volley the Blackberry have looked you're gonna see after Katrina as a Nevada. When did you get the quake was banged. Ports that are in casinos in Nevada and I think you're gonna think he's fainting in Atlantic City and the rest of the state like Pennsylvania that you Catholic. But I wanna go back real quick they're playing about the corruption aspect but the real purpose of this stopped. Corruption and boards there's this idea. And a one point one of the things I've been saying for years now is that that's not our job. And the culture and that the government put taxpayers' money you'd expect reputation billion dollar. Industry they have plenty of money and they should be addressing corruption to conclude their players there special they have ruled they just need to enforce them. Really interest to you today that debate that the Supreme Court has thrown back to us so I'm sure this will not be the last conversation we have about a Michelle men's and at the Competitive Enterprise Institute appreciate. You were. Download on this this morning thank you yeah yeah.
READ MOREREAD LESS