Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

[SweetHome_Bama]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

What in God's name are you trying to support here? You don't have a clue what this case actually holds. This is embarrassing for you.

Here, don't just take my word for it. Turns out the Supreme Court has actually held that boxing is of an interstate character:


There would seem to be little doubt that a federal regulatory regime to oversee the professional boxing industry would fit quite comfortably under the broad reach of the Commerce Clause.58 The interstate character of the industry has been recognized by the Supreme Court in connection with anti-trust regulation.59 For purposes of Sherman Act applicability, the Court held that “the promotion of professional championship boxing contests on a multistate basis, coupled with the sale of rights to televise, broadcast, and film the contests for interstate transmission” constitutes interstate commerce.60 It would be crucial, therefore, to the success of federal regulation that federally promulgated uniform health and safety standards and other initiatives reach local industry activities where arguably the risk of injury is greatest. Again, expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence over the years, which has allowed Congressional mandates to bind local incidents of interstate *45 commerce, would seem adequate for the task.61

Peter E. Millspaugh, The Federal Regulation of Professional Boxing: Will Congress Answer the Bell?, 19 Seton Hall Legis. J. 33, 44-45 (1994)





Once again, you're dead wrong.

Nice story, but the court who made that ruling was not the Court that decided Lopez and not the court of today.

If you knew Constitutional law, you would understand that the validity of any law rests on the court.

I have a hard time seeing

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas siding with your argument of the commerce clause and why boxing would be allowed to regulated by the Fed, away from the states.


-------

I see why the promotors would want it, less payouts to negotiate to bogus government cronies.

[iceman71]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

I'm starting to think it might not be such a bad idea. Discuss.

the federal govt butchers anything it gets its hands on

they cant even regulate the the u.s. postal service, which is borderline bankrupt and horrible......

let boxing be shitty without them...rather than shitty with em

[RazorHandz]

Boxing is an international sport, there should one independent governing body for the whole sport.

[dyna]

Originally Posted by Cage

name one single thing the government has had control of and not fucked up?

JUST ONE

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

[the_truth]

Boxing should be kept the way it has been since day one to today. Nothing has to be change, different promoters are needed in the sport. Unfortunately that will have ups and downs, but it will avoid a group of guys controlling everything and making stupid decisions. The more people involve the better it will be, just like any business in this world. Competition amongst themselves will always be better for the consumer/customer/fan. Leave boxing the way it is, the goverment has enough problems that they can't even fix. They have their own fights and brawls

[the_truth]

Originally Posted by Cage

name one single thing the government has had control of and not fucked up?

JUST ONE

Getting their tax money and giving themselves amazing retirement package deals/raises amongst themselves

[iceman71]

we need an inter galactic council

[Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

Nice story, but the court who made that ruling was not the Court that decided Lopez and not the court of today.

If you knew Constitutional law, you would understand that the validity of any law rests on the court.

I have a hard time seeing

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas siding with your argument of the commerce clause and why boxing would be allowed to regulated by the Fed, away from the states.


-------

I see why the promotors would want it, less payouts to negotiate to bogus government cronies.

The court of today would basically be obligated, due to the doctrine of stare decisis, to uphold the regulation. If you knew anything about the law (which you obviously don't) you'd understand this. If Congress attempted to regulate boxing under the Commerce Clause, it would not be trying to expand its Commerce Clause power. It's settled law, based on very longstanding precedent, that activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce are subject to Congress's Commerce Clause power.
You may not like that, and it's obvious that you don't understand how it works, but this is simply fact. And you're simply wrong.

[Juiceboxbiotch]

I'm a "Boxing Socialist" in the sense that I would fucking love there to be one National Commission overseeing the sport. The fact that each state runs their own shit, put together with the fact that there are 984,189,743,167,974 different corrupt title organizations it's the main thing leaving fans disillusioned.

[SimplyTheBest]

Originally Posted by RazorHandz

Boxing is an international sport, there should one independent governing body for the whole sport.

This.

Boxing is global, and one of the problems is that governing bodies can be side stepped by simply staging any given fight in another jurisdiction. An independent, international organization is needed to ensure everyone everywhere is playing by the same rules. However the problem lies in forming such a body that everybody from very different cultures and economic levels will accept as binding, and preventing corruption within that body. It's in reality impossible, as we've seen corruption within the International Olympic Committee and other cases. As long as money is trading hands in the sport, there's going to be irregularities, corruption and scandal.

[SweetHome_Bama]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

The court of today would basically be obligated, due to the doctrine of stare decisis, to uphold the regulation. If you knew anything about the law (which you obviously don't) you'd understand this. If Congress attempted to regulate boxing under the Commerce Clause, it would not be trying to expand its Commerce Clause power. It's settled law, based on very longstanding precedent, that activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce are subject to Congress's Commerce Clause power.
You may not like that, and it's obvious that you don't understand how it works, but this is simply fact. And you're simply wrong.

No court is bound by anything they don't want to be bound by. If that was the case Citizen United wouldn't have been decided the way it was. LOL.

If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would know that. You would know the main talent of constitutional lawyers is tailoring their argment to fit the justices in play on the bench.

There is no such thing as settled law, so your talk of any Constitutional setting in practice as settled and concrete is ridiculous on its face.

I don't think the point could be made any clearer in reality than the contrieved decision the Court made with regard to Nationalized Romneycare/Obamacare.

Like I said though, you are going to believe what you want, and I'm going to believe what I believe.

-------

Personally I don't see why people would want one corrupt body that no one could get away from over 50 smaller bodies that are forced to compete against each other.

[Brian]

The government has REAL issues they should be worried about.

[Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

No court is bound by anything they don't want to be bound by. If that was the case Citizen United wouldn't have been decided the way it was. LOL.

If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would know that. You would know the main talent of constitutional lawyers is tailoring their argment to fit the justices in play on the bench.

There is no such thing as settled law, so your talk of any Constitutional setting in practice as settled and concrete is ridiculous on its face.

I don't think the point could be made any clearer in reality than the contrieved decision the Court made with regard to Nationalized Romneycare/Obamacare.

Like I said though, you are going to believe what you want, and I'm going to believe what I believe.

-------

Personally I don't see why people would want one corrupt body that no one could get away from over 50 smaller bodies that are forced to compete against each other.

I'm sorry, but it's a basic fact the Supreme Court holds itself to the doctrine of Stare Decisis. While there is certainly a large political component to many of its decisions, that would not be a factor in this case. The more novel the case, the more novel the legal and factual subject matter, the larger the political component of the decision might be. I could find you case after case where Scalia himself says he doesn't like what he's ruling, but feels obligated to do so because of stare decisis.

Your conception of how the Supreme Court works is a very common layman misconception. Sorry.

A hypothetical law regulating boxing would not be based on novel arguments (in contrast to say... Obamacare, which sought to regulate inactivity). It would be based on arguments rooted in decades upon decades of precedent. In order for the Court to feel comfortable overturning the law, it would have to distinguish it from this precedent. Any attempt to do so would be extraordinarily sophistic and the court simply wouldn't do it. To do so would overturn an enormous chunk of the foundation of Commerce Clause doctrine. It simply wouldn't happen.

And in fact, the recent health care ruling almost certainly argues directly to the opposite of what you think it does. The reason Roberts switched sides and voted to uphold the law was because he felt that the Court was becoming too politicized, too activist, and was jeopardizing its legitimacy. Roberts' majority opinion rests on the concept of judicial deference:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. “Proper respect for a coordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635, 1 S.Ct. 601, 27 L.Ed. 290 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2579 (2012)

[SweetHome_Bama]

If the Supreme Court held itself to Stare Decisis it wouldn't have decided Citizens the way it did. If stare decisis is the goal then there would be no overturning of precedent and the Court has routinely engaged in that action.

So your claim is wrong on its face sloth, especially when you look at the Robert's court.

My look at the court is a realist position, grounded in being informed of the history of the court and its actions. You clearly are ignoring reality to take the stance you are now taking.

Roberts breakdown of Romney care, which he ruled as a tax instead of a mandate, which it is shows clearly that the man cowered in the face of a political decision and took the easy way out. That said, he didn't make the decision based on stare decisis or established precedent, he dodged the issue presented to the court entirely.

[irishny]

Government should be involved with as little as is humanly possible.