4 ms·
I think the gp just means, “if we put aside that this is a contentious company.” I’m not sure that interstate commerce should apply here—it seems correct that
by tyre 2mo ago
I think the gp just means, “if we put aside that this is a contentious company.”
I’m not sure that interstate commerce should apply here—it seems correct that a state can ban gambling, even if it is on the Internet against out-of-state US nationals—but if the CFTC is asserting its pre-emption under existing law, it needs to assert it (as it is doing so here.)
It’s pretty clear that this is (a) gambling and (b) explicitly excluded from the CFTC’s legal mandate (“gaming”), but obviously this is about corruption and not a good faith interpretation.
I expect this to go to the Supreme Court and for the Court to side with the corruption.
- nickff 2mo agoIf Wickard v Filburn is still good law, I don’t understand how the betting market is anything but interstate commerce. Futures trading is betting, especially where they’re settled in cash.
- AlotOfReading 2mo agoStates have been individually regulating gambling within their borders since they were English colonies. No one interpreted it as interstate commerce until PASPA in 1992, which was gutted by Murphy.
- brainwad 2mo agoEveryone points to the gaming exemption, but is that not supposed to cover, well, games - the classic casino table games like blackjack, poker, craps, roulette, etc? I don't really see how horse or sports betting is gaming.