Point Spread

15 05 2018

Washington, D.C.

You may have heard that SCOTUS “legalized sports gambling” yesterday.

Technically, no dice.

What they actually did was find unconstitutional the Federal law which prohibited sports gambling in the states and D.C. and Federal territories other than Nevada.  I have not yet read the decision, because I’m still feeling under the weather, but my bet is that the majority opinion reasoning revolved around the inconsistency (relating either to due process or equal protection) of nowhere-but-Nevada.

In theory, this now puts the ball back in Congress’s court.  The only kind of legislation they could pass now is a total national prohibition.  But this current Senate is not about to do that when an incumbent Senate Republican from Nevada is up for re-election this year.  Then there’s the matter of the President who either has to sign or veto it — Remember, he owns casinos.

So what this means in practicality is that, with no Federal legislation probable, this will leave sports gambling on a per-state basis.  New Jersey, which brought the case against the Feds, is pretty much ready to go now, in order to breathe new life into the moribund Atlantic City gaming industry.  (Again, someone we know owns a casino there.)  As for the other states, this is going to create something of a lobbying gravy train.

Three years ago, a name that was in the news just last week, that being (now former) NYS AG Eric Schneiderman, spooked the hell out of the daily fantasy internet business (basically, DraftKings and FanDuel) with the announcement that basically went like this:  “Dude, it’s gambling.”  This got the daily fantasy industry to work spending lots of money on lots of lobbyists on a per-state level to make sure daily fantasy stays legalized.  Some of that gravy landed on my head, which means the precise content of Missouri’s “regulatory framework” of daily fantasy internet games is in part my handiwork.

Mainstream casinos in terms of revenue and profitability punch, and in turn, what they can spend on political lobbying, are two orders of magnitude more than the daily fantasy business.  Believe me, they’re going to spend.  It will be in effect the full employment bill for state-level lobbyists for around five years.

Just my educated guess based on what I know about how Missouri’s current legislative class thinks and their proclivities, but the way it will probably shake out in Missouri is that the “riverboat” casinos will be allowed to have sports books, but only for in-person wagering, no online.


Fake News Express

26 02 2018

Washington, D.C.

Much of the major media are deliberately misrepresenting what SCOTUS did this morning.  Even Drudge, with a deceptive big bold red headline, as I write this post.

What SCOTUS did NOT do was state that they would NEVER hear the White House’s appeal to a Federal district court judge’s pro-DACA ruling.

What SCOTUS DID decide was that they were not going to take the case DIRECTLY, jumping over the relevant Federal Appellate court (probably the 9th Circus in this case).  The decision this morning openly stated that the White House would have to go through the appellate level first, and then if they won’t win there, appeal to SCOTUS.

We Wuz Kangz, Writ 134 Minutes

16 02 2018

I’m just waiting, and not gleefully so, for the first news story to cross mine eyes about a black either murdering or violently assaulting a white person, because MUH WAKANDA.

It happened after Roots, and Mississippi Burning, and A Time to Kill, and Twelve Years a Slave.  One of our common complaints is that hate crimes enhancements almost always seem to be a single-edged sword that is swung in one direction.  Oddly enough, though, the 1993 Supreme Court decision which green lighted they very concept of bias enhancements, Wisconsin v Mitchell, originated in a black that got all up in his feelings and felt some kind of way after watching Mississippi Burning, and took out his frustration by turning a white teen inside out.  At the time he did it, Wisconsin had a hate crimes provision, and Mr. Mitchell’s lawyers, well, literally, took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Now that I’ve established this, I’m waiting on any trolls or incredulous interlocutors to retort with what I think they will, because I’ve already got the response rearin’da’go.

This thing for awhile had a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  When you can’t get 100% of people to agree that the color of a lemon is yellow.  Yeah, real, fishy.

The Sound of the Furie

16 12 2017

Washington, D.C.

Why Matt Furie has no grounds to prevent any known Alt-Right individuals or groups from using Pepe images.


In Blue Blazes

20 11 2017


Alright, something really weird is going down here.

Dierker is only one of only two really good judges on the 22nd, the other, Tim Wilson, is by state law ageing out of the bench at the end of the year.  Since Dierker is starting this new gig also on January 1, both of the good judges on the 22nd will no longer be judges as of the same day.

But here’s the bigger WTF:

Kim Gardner (campaign funded by Soros) is giving this job to Robert Dierker (a judge I have openly praised on this medium).

This is about as inexplicable, and probably will last as long, as the Hitler-Stalin Pact, for much the same reason.

I’d put some brain energy into trying to spit out some good theories, but I don’t want my brain to overheat and cause the rest of me to start hurting any more than it is already.  The only thing I can think of without thinking too much is that Tim Wilson was on the Jason Stockley case, and because Stockley opted for a bench trial, Wilson personally decided on and handed down the not guilty verdict.  That might play into Gardner’s decision in some way.  Another possibility is that Gardner wants Dierker out of the 22nd so he doesn’t hear any cases her office brings, but the trouble with that theory is that a Republican Governor now gets to pick Dierker’s (and Wilson’s, too), replacement.

Potemkin Lawsuit

30 06 2017



A group of 10 Republican state attorneys general and one governor are threatening to sue the Trump administration if it does not rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Obama executive action that granted amnesty to more than one million undocumented immigrants.

“We respectfully request that the Secretary of Homeland Security phase out the DACA program,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday.

Not at face value.

The Democrats and the left have made an art of this Potemkin lawfare.  A Democrat White House will on the sly facilitate a lawsuit against itself on a given matter, begging behind the scenes for various liberal and niche interest groups, NGOs, LDFs and local and state governments to sue them.  Then they’ll shop the thing to a sympathetic liberal-Democrat Federal judge. The Democrat Party’s AG/DOJ/SG will mysteriously “bungle” their case, wink wink.  That way, the policy change that all parties involve really want will happen under the “serious” imprimatur of a court order, rather than the result of the exercise of plenary political power, thereby dampening outrage and opposition.

This is how we ended up with the repudiation of the PACE exam for Federal civil service hiring and replacing it with an affirmative action friendly system.  In its final weeks, before Reagan came in, the Carter Administration pulled this trick.  The Pigford Settlement (the fake black “farmers”) also happened the same way, that started in the Clinton Administration.  The Obama Administration did the same with DOMA.

All that I think is happening here is that Trump and Sessions are taking up the same trick.  I think through back channels, they’re begging people to sue them over DACA, and got ten Republican state AGs and one Republican Governor to sign up. Remember, if this thing makes it to SCOTUS, will be a SCOTUS that now has Neil Gorsuch, and, presumably, by the time it gets it, maybe one or two more Trump appointees.

The difference is that the Democrats and the left, as pioneers of this tactic, will certainly know someone else running it when they see it, and therefore, not restrain their outrage machine.

SCOTUS Finds For Trinity Lutheran

26 06 2017


I wrote about it back in April, and today, SCOTUS saw it my way.

The way the majority opinion was written, this is not a ruling that will have a long shadow.  Which means it won’t nail down a specific paradigm on these kinds of establishmentarian-funding questions that exist in the margins of church-state matters.  It is only a decision on this particular case in this particular time in this particular jurisdiction in these particular circumstances.