So, when will poker be clearly legal in the US again? [Archive]

View Full Version : So, when will poker be clearly legal in the US again?

Ironic

09-29-2007, 02:06 PM

Hello, every now and then I pop into this forum hoping to get a rough prediction of when or if everything will turn back to how it was pre-legislation.

Can someone knowledgeable give me a brief twenty line summary of what the future may hold and any likely timelines? Anything jargon free would be great.

I tried scanning the master sticky but got lost.

Thanks a lot to anyone who helps.

CybrPunk

09-29-2007, 02:09 PM

http://keithcombs.members.winisp.net/flyingpig.gif

Ironic

09-29-2007, 04:55 PM

Oh and I meant online poker of course. Before someone comes in with a smart answer. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

JPFisher55

09-29-2007, 05:17 PM

Any time between the end of the year, if WTO really grants IP sanctions to Antiquq or a favorable court ruling, until 2010-11 at the latest. By 2010-11, some licensing of US based online gambling sites with strict regulation and taxes will be enacted. Just my opinion.

Jerry D

09-29-2007, 09:53 PM

When the US Justice Dept. isn't being run by a bunch of radical religious Republicans who graduated from Pat Robertson's law school. This isn't a joke, the Bush administration is heavily staffed with graduates from Pat Robertson's law school. There are lots of articles about it if you google them.

Jimbo

09-30-2007, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When the US Justice Dept. isn't being run by a bunch of radical religious Republicans who graduated from Pat Robertson's law school. This isn't a joke, the Bush administration is heavily staffed with graduates from Pat Robertson's law school. There are lots of articles about it if you google them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wih uninformed posters like this spouting their propaganda online poker has no chance in the near future. It took Dems to pass the legislation and a Dem in the AG's office wil be charged wih enforcing the laws passed by Congress as well.

Jimbo

TheEngineer

09-30-2007, 02:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When the US Justice Dept. isn't being run by a bunch of radical religious Republicans who graduated from Pat Robertson's law school. This isn't a joke, the Bush administration is heavily staffed with graduates from Pat Robertson's law school. There are lots of articles about it if you google them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wih uninformed posters like this spouting their propaganda online poker has no chance in the near future. It took Dems to pass the legislation and a Dem in the AG's office wil be charged wih enforcing the laws passed by Congress as well.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points. Some Dems helped pass UIGEA. It is important to remember that this was the Republican Party's baby, though. It was in their party platform, and Congressional Republicans support it to this day. Check out Politicians For and Against Online Poker, August 29, 2007 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11872919&an=0&page=0#Pos t11872919) for data.

As for the AG, the Bush administration CHOOSES to interpret the Wire Act as covering all gaming, including horse racing and interstate lotteries. The law as passed by Congress has been interpreted by an appeals court (last time I read the Constitution, interpretation of laws was the responsibility of the courts, not the AG) as applying to sports betting only. A different administration could choose to interpret this law differently.

Jerry D

09-30-2007, 09:37 AM

Republicans were THE FORCE behind banning online poker. Keep voting Republican until they take ALL of your freedoms away.

TheEngineer

09-30-2007, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Check out Politicians For and Against Online Poker, August 29, 2007 for data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Summary, U.S. House (9/8/07):

..................... Dem.....Rep
with us............112......15
neutral............108......72
against us.........17.....114

oldbookguy

09-30-2007, 12:12 PM

Interesting, if we could secure a mere 50.5% of the netural we cover the house 218 / 217 for us.

BTW, the chart is off someplace by 3, the numbers add up to 438, there are 435 voting members. The 3 non voting (D.C., P.R. and V.I.) need to be removed if they are included.

Seems the house may be possible.

obg

DeadMoneyDad

09-30-2007, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, if we could secure a mere 50.5% of the netural we cover the house 218 / 217 for us.

BTW, the chart is off someplace by 3, the numbers add up to 438, there are 435 voting members. The 3 non voting (D.C., P.R. and V.I.) need to be removed if they are included.

Seems the house may be possible.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that trade issues are involved getting through the Senate will be key.

The more power we get in the House the better the bill we get created in the House the better we will be. But the Senate is the eventual key to the issue.

D$D

TheEngineer

09-30-2007, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, if we could secure a mere 50.5% of the netural we cover the house 218 / 217 for us.

BTW, the chart is off someplace by 3, the numbers add up to 438, there are 435 voting members. The 3 non voting (D.C., P.R. and V.I.) need to be removed if they are included.

Seems the house may be possible.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two vacant seats and five delegates (the ones you listed, plus Guam and American Samoa). I left them in because they are now permitted to vote (new rule), subject to casting deciding votes.

TheEngineer

09-30-2007, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, if we could secure a mere 50.5% of the netural we cover the house 218 / 217 for us.

BTW, the chart is off someplace by 3, the numbers add up to 438, there are 435 voting members. The 3 non voting (D.C., P.R. and V.I.) need to be removed if they are included.

Seems the house may be possible.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two vacant seats and five delegates (the ones you listed, plus Guam and American Samoa). I left them in because they are now permitted to vote (new rule), subject to casting deciding votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my article on Congress:

U.S. House, by Region:

..................... With Us.....Neutral/Unknown.....Against us
Northeast............40%.....................48%..................11%
West...................41%.....................41%..................18%
Midwest..............25%.....................45%..................30%
Territories............20%.....................40%..................40%
South..................18%.....................34%..................47%

The Northeast has 82 reps (plus one vacant seat), the West has 97 reps (plus the other vacant seat), the Midwest has 100 reps, the territories (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, D.C. and the Virgin Islands) have five delegates, and the South has 154 reps.

As can be readily seen, the South is strongly against us. There are 284 non-Southern reps: 35% with us, 44% neutral/unknown, and only 21% against us. Of the 132 congressmen rated F, F*, or F-, 73 are Southern (56%). As one of the main opponents of allowing people to choose to play Internet poker is Focus on the Family, this should not be surprising (http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/A000004244.cfm and http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/gam...AX_to_HOUSE.pdf (http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/fosi/gambling/08-02-07_Internet_Gamb_GroupSign_Letter_8-1-07_Final_FAX_to_HOUSE.pdf)).

Ironic

09-30-2007, 04:32 PM

The Engineer, what do you think? What kind of timeline do you think we are looking at here? I know nothing about politics. I ask you because you seem to really know what you're talking about here.

TheEngineer

09-30-2007, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Engineer, what do you think? What kind of timeline do you think we are looking at here? I know nothing about politics. I ask you because you seem to really know what you're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but I really have no estimate, either. Let's just keep fighting back to do our part.

------------------------------------

Join the fight!: Fight for Online Poker!! Weeks of 9/24 & 10/1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12223271&page=0&vc=1#Pos t12207104)

DeadMoneyDad

09-30-2007, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Engineer, what do you think? What kind of timeline do you think we are looking at here? I know nothing about politics. I ask you because you seem to really know what you're talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but I really have no estimate, either. Let's just keep fighting back to do our part.

------------------------------------

Join the fight!: Fight for Online Poker!! Weeks of 9/24 & 10/1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12223271&page=0&vc=1#Pos t12207104)

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct answer to all poker questions is:

Depends! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

D$D

Ir is also the answer to the joke, "do you know what going down on a female senior citizen tastes like?"

Jimbo

10-01-2007, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As for the AG, the Bush administration CHOOSES to interpret the Wire Act as covering all gaming, including horse racing and interstate lotteries. The law as passed by Congress has been interpreted by an appeals court (last time I read the Constitution, interpretation of laws was the responsibility of the courts, not the AG) as applying to sports betting only. A different administration could choose to interpret this law differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but the wire act doesn't prosecute the bettor IIRC. Besides the wire Act doesn't have anything to do with State gambling laws which is what I thought the discussion at hand revolves around completely.

Until a case reaches the Supreme Court of the USA prosecuting an entity for taking online poker bets across State lines the legality is still blurry. I wish Congress, yes the Democratic controlled Congress we have now, would step in and clarify the Wire Act. Remember doing nothing is tacit support as well.

Jimbo

Cactus Jack

10-01-2007, 09:36 AM

Remember, it was ONE guy who passed the UIGEA. Frist. Dems who voted for the bill in the House, many (most?) of them, never thought it would get to be a law. They bet and we lost.

But it was only one guy who got this piece of garbage into law.

DeadMoneyDad

10-01-2007, 10:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, it was ONE guy who passed the UIGEA. Frist. Dems who voted for the bill in the House, many (most?) of them, never thought it would get to be a law. They bet and we lost.

But it was only one guy who got this piece of garbage into law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forget how did that work out for him politically????

D$D