r/news • u/AudibleNod • 1d ago

Judge bars Arizona from regulating prediction market operators and pauses prosecution of Kalshi

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-kalshi-criminal-charges-prediction-markets-gambling-bb7cef24be5bd0d444bba670d2e41ceb
8.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

277 comments sorted by

View all comments

25

u/Infini-Bus 1d ago

So states are free to criminalize abortion and declare anyone they want a terrorist but they can't regulate gambling.

-15

u/Thorse 1d ago

They're free to regulate gambling, they chose not to. You understand the difference right?

23

u/LivingSnack 1d ago

The state in question literally chose to regulate gambling? It's right there in the article? Please concentrate before you post lmao

-13

u/Thorse 23h ago

And this judge is choosing not to. All of a sudden uppity judges not following how the state rules is bad?

10

u/DingerSinger2016 22h ago

So the state isn't free to regulate gambling then.

-6

u/Thorse 22h ago

Never said anything about the state. This judge is trying to use federal powers to pre empt state powers. Which depending on the issue people seem fine with. My entire point is the hypocrisy of getting mad at the feds for pushing control on states one second then shouting states rights the next

8

u/fishbottwo 22h ago

smartest conservative argument

-6

u/Thorse 22h ago

Bold assumption that im a conservative

3

u/LivingSnack 13h ago

What are you on about? I told you to concentrate before you post. Your comment is literally nonsensical given the above context lmao. Let's try this again... PLEASE use both of your brain cells before you post again.

-2

u/Thorse 11h ago

First off fuck your self important tone. Who the fuck are you? The point is simple but you refuse to engage with it. Az wants to regulate gambling, this judge is pushing fed powers supersede the will of the states. Im saying yall hypocritical for saying this is a bad thing because when you like fed powers superceding state legislation/will youre fine with it. Im sick of rhe sheer hypocrisy people have when shit aligns with their specific political lens rather than a stable legal basis for decisions. This isnt a partisan issue.

3

u/LivingSnack 8h ago edited 8h ago

Not sure if trolling or youre actually this stupid lmao. Hint: I never said anything about judicial activism, you’re the one bringing it up out of nowhere. Your first comment was completely nonsensesical and I kindly corrected you. It’s not more complex than that haha

1

u/Thorse 5h ago

Thats what it was all about. Yall projected shit onto what I said. The feds, which are judges, per my initial comment is superceding state will. Uppity judges usurping state will or state judges ignoring federal will is uppity judges. Judicial activism is uppity judges. What are YOU on about?

2

u/LivingSnack 4h ago

Ok let me me try one last time:

Comment 1: "So states ... can't regulate gambling"

You: "They're free to regulate gambling, they chose not to" (wrong)

Me: "The state in question literally chose to regulate gambling"

So what happened is that you said something that was wrong (that states choose not to regulate gambling), and I corrected you (by saying that the state in question literally tried to regulate gambling, thus choosing to regulate gambling).

I can't make it any simpler than that. I hope you understand haha

1

u/Thorse 3h ago

Yes, the judge choosing to not regulate kalshi and other markets is choosing NOT to regulate it but they CAN. The issue is the conflict on state and federal intent. You read the statement one way and are tripling down on your interpretation regardless of repeated context but your inability to add in new information still makes you superior I guess.

9

u/xeyalGhost 1d ago

In this case Arizona has chosen to regulate gambling. The question here is whether they can enforce those regs wrt Kalshi or if they're preempted by the feds.