[thaumasiotes]

> and it ruled gambling legislation was a states rights issue.

What did that change? Gambling legislation was a states' issue before. You might have noticed that different states had wildly different gambling regimes.

(...and all federal legislation is a states' rights issue?)

> Now the argument that would have appeared batshit insane a decade ago, that there’s no federal way to prevent this[,] is [the] de facto law of the land.

You're talking about a law that was invalidated eight years ago, and passed 24 years before that. Which position would have looked insane more of the time?

[refulgentis]

Fair point that PASPA was the exception, not the rule, and that the anti-commandeering / "states rights" argument isn't some novel theory. It does happen to be deployed often in cases where businesses don't want to be regulated. (and, the elephant in the room, more famously....never mind, let's not go there)

I overstated the court-packing angle, Murphy was 7-2, not a partisan split.

But my actual point is narrower than the constitutional question: in practice, sports betting was confined to Nevada and reservations for decades. Once that dam broke, the path from legal sports betting to VC-funded "that but for everything" prediction markets to the current situation happened really fast, and there's no regulatory apparatus keeping up with it. Whether the dam should have broken is a separate question from whether anyone's minding the flood.