3 ms·
> they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional. > ...That is why it was stricken Do you have quote from the d
by jessriedel 8y ago
> they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional.
> ...That is why it was stricken
Do you have quote from the decision to support this? It seems to conflict with what I excerpted and the analysis I've seen.
- T-hawk 8y agoIt wasn't arbitrary. The states that had pre-existing laws kept them. The original decision prevented states from passing new laws to enable gambling, but didn't strike down or repeal existing laws, thus those states essentially got grandfathered in. Media reports like to spin it as "sports gambling is illegal except in XYZ states", to make it look like favoritism and the story inciteful, but really the only thing distinguishing those states is legacy code.
- jessriedel 8y agoI think you're disagreeing with raiyu, not me?