Tag: casinos

Defending Michigan's sovereign status before the US Supreme court, the attorney general makes this argument:

"If France opened an illegal casino in Michigan, the State could enjoin it, rather than arresting French workers or suing President Francois Hollande.  Surely domestic tribes are not entitled to greater immunity than foreign sovereign nations."

In fact, how can the sovereign nature of the tribes produce candidates or legal contributors/lobbyists in Michigan politics? Or to put it another way, if Ohioan citizens decided to run for Michigan representative seats or make laws for activities in Michigan, how is that different from that of the tribes acting and ruling as sovereign entities within their boundaries, then stepping out to engage in our processes outside of them?

As a state, the Ohioan argument above stands. As a nation, Schuette's point is quite valid, and could be taken a bit further.

Dismantle the BIA, and rid ourselves of these special rights endowed upon the 'neighboring' nations inside our borders. And as the discussion before the US supreme court goes forward, perhaps a reaffirmation of the US as a nation of laws can begin.

The Associated Press reports that the Democrats' bill carves out one not insignificant but highly incongruous exception.  Business is booming on casino floors across the Motor City and it would suffer were the legislature to eliminate patrons' right to light a square.  Banning smoking would cost the casinos more than a couple of jobs and the Democrats can't have that.  Killing jobs in bars and restaurants... that's OK.  Because apparently some jobs are more important than others.

"Last time I checked, picking and choosing what businesses fail in Michigan is not in our lawmakers' job description," said Lance Binoniemi, executive director of the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association.

Representative Jim Stamas provided the lone dissenting voice in committee, but even some Lefties recognize the destructive nature of their Majority's legislation.  The AP:

Committee chair Bert Johnson, D-Highland Park, said he supports broadening the exemption to include bars, small businesses he said are struggling to survive "our tough economy." One approach would permit smoking in any business with an age requirement of 21 years. That would exempt some bars from the ban but not restaurants.

The rest of Johnson's Party disagrees.  And we've played this game before.  

We can go around and around about personal freedom, health, general welfare, the whole kit and caboodle.  Sadly, the concept of a smoking "ban" appears to be a settled issue in the legislature.  Last cycle the House did what they did yesterday, voting to kill jobs but only certain jobs.  The Senate at least managed a little consistency, voting to ban smoking inside public establishments across the board... no carve-outs for the Democrats' special interest pals.

Then again, maybe the elimination of personal freedom ISN'T a settled issue. Senate Republicans aren't idiots.  They know that an across the board ban on smoking would never fly in the House.  By approving a ban on smoking they're effectively ensuring a ban on smoking never becomes law.  Shrewd.

Dillon and the House Dems failed to move the Senate bill last year and if the Reg Reform Committee's actions this week are any indication they haven't learned a single new trick.  So round and round we go.  Which is pretty OK on this end.  In their zeal to kill SOME jobs while managing to protect their political donors and local cash cows, Team Dillon winds up accidentally protecting jobs and personal freedom.

Oops.