I'm not writing on the Christie v. NCAA arguments at #SCOTUS, so I'll highlight a bit of the transcript here. Here it is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-476_4fb4.pdf …
-
-
Here's where Sotomayor basically argued that government is always choosing enforcement priorities so, even under PASPA, NJ could choose just not to enforce its sports betting ban.pic.twitter.com/cPDxLNvLsr
Show this thread -
Clement's difficulties before the justices — representing the NCAA et al. — were pretty clear pretty quickly:pic.twitter.com/HUtxralKDK
Show this thread -
-
Principal Deputy SG Wall, on what NJ can do, per DOJ: "They can strengthen or they can repeal in whole or they can repeal in part in various ways. The one thing they can't do is affirmatively engage in the one kind of conduct that Congress took off the table as a policy matter."pic.twitter.com/3tk4mI2Sym
Show this thread -
After that exchange with the Chief, however, Wall also said, "[I]f states start lifting their prohibitions in whole, I think Congress may well want to revisit that." ... Which was interesting.pic.twitter.com/6FPXaV1XyM
Show this thread -
Also, when Wall was talking about the earlier version of the law NJ tried to pass, Sotomayor referenced that law not having "a snowball's chance" of being found to meet PASPA's requirements. ... Which might be a
#SCOTUS first.pic.twitter.com/BJdOkwt7Vy
Show this thread -
Final note: Sotomayor also referenced "gambling houses," which made me chuckle.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.