Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaredklewis | Hacker News Reader

It's always plainly obvious what is illegal. Given the total lack of ambiguity, why do we even need all these courts and judges to decide stuff? After all, we're all intimately familiar the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, relevant state laws, and how the constitution would control the interaction bewtween these. /s

I despise gambling and would very like if there was less of it. But that's not a legal opinion, those are just my feelings. There are good faith legal arguments that these state laws cannot override federal laws and that the federal laws allow these prediction markets. We live in a country with an enormously complex legal system and with a volume of legislation that is, without question, far beyond what any single individual could reasonably comprehend. This often means that what is legal and illegal is unclear. I think this is one of those circumstances.

View on HN

I agree, this needs to be decided by the court. But it's not really an issue of a state law trying to supersede a federal law. It's a state law superceding the authority a _regulator_ believes it has.

Kalshi has a serious uphill battle here. As the Judge said in granting Utah's motion and delying Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction:

> Shelby determined the text of US law makes it clear that state regulation is not forbidden. US law states that CFTC jurisdiction does not “supersede or limit the jurisdiction conferred on courts of the United States or any State,” and “explicitly provides for State regulation of its gaming laws in all but a few specified cases,” he wrote.

> “Congress is aware that some States permit gambling while others do not, and the CEA explicitly provides for State jurisdiction,” Shelby wrote.

Right but the CFTC is saying their authority is based in federal law.

Judge Shelby’s interpretation quoted above seems in conflict with how the 3rd circuit ruled in Kalshiex v. Flaherty, which is why I think the law is not entirely clear yet. I would be surprised if SCOTUS eventually weighs in

I'm not saying I'm right here, but I am saying it seems facially ridiculous to consider "an opinion on who will win the super bowl" as a commodity future. Like, nobody is getting a superbowl win delivered to their house after the future contract executes.

all of this stuff is very obviously sports betting. Kalshi can say the piss on our pantlegs is rain, but I don't feel very obligated to belive it. I recognize the legal argument, I personally think it's bunk, I think it's reasonable for a legislator to say it's bunk, and it is hardly settled to say that Utah can't do this.

In fact, we rewound to, say like 2010, this would be completely obvious that Utah is correct.

I guess I think these concepts are slightly fuzzier than you do. I think concepts like gambling, speculating, hedging and investing are all distinct but also all have some overlap. But again these are just my feelings.

I haven't read the CFTC Act of 1974, but I've read opinions of respected lawyers and legal scholars on this issue and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think there's a good chance this one goes to the supreme court. SCOTUS doesn't usually weigh in on things that are "facially ridiculous."

It seems many people seem to think our justice system is now just a sham, but I think that at present, despite its many flaws, it is by far the most well functioning branch of our government and that more often than not, the courts are making a good faith effort to do a difficult task.

If I were god-king would I make legislation to ban prediction markets for sports events and such? Without question. Is it obvious to me that our current set of laws does not grant the CFTC jurisdiction over this? I guess not.

you do know that we can have an opinion both on:

* laws that ought to exist

* how existing laws ought to be interpreted

* whether a given interpretation is correct

* whether a given interpretation is good

and that the court attempts to interpret and apply laws, not create them? And the legislature can just change laws if they don't like what the court does?

Just because some highly compensated lawyers, and some who wish Kalshi would butter their bread, throw some dust in the air doesn't mean we have to strap on a dunce cap and pretend a bet on the superbowl is really a commodity future. We don't even have to pretend that's a reasonable opinion to have.

Yea I’m all for legislators legislating, they just don’t tend to do that of late.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com