[OB-Wan222]

I fear that we are getting far away from the OP about the CNN story, but following the train of thought...

JPFisher55 "...if we win the legal battle over the WTO... If we win the legal battle over the constitutionality of the UIGEA and/or the right to play online poker in our homes..."

The International pro-gaming forces have already won the UIGEA/WTO dispute. And it does not involve skill vs. luck, it involves wired transmission of wagers. It boils down to rather the International community will impose sanctions that the US cannot live with. Right now the Administration is using its favorite tactic - defining things the way it wants to regardless of reality (shades of 1984!) - to postpone the consequences of its unilateral action. But it is not and never was an argument based on skill vs. luck.

The major Constitutional argument against the UIGEA is that it is vague to the point of being unenforceable. Again Congress can address that with a more detailed attempt to define "illegal internet gambling", but again we end up in the legislativive areana, not the courts.

The major point being - there is no Constitutional right to games of skill or luck - or games at all. And when we discuss the Constitution and its interpretation by The Court (not lower case, the courts) let's not forget that we almost have a Scalia Court and Scalia is not someone that to whom I would trust my personal privacy, since he doesn't believe in any such thing.

JPFisher55 "Heck, right now, Congress cannot pass all the budget bills. And the UIGEA was only passed by attaching it to a very important national security bill concerning our ports."

I agree that in general gambling is a very low priority, but it seems that politicians can still find time to get their jabs in. And here we are again discussing legislations, i.e. politicians, not judges.

Courts have their place but we shouldn't take our eye off the ball. Drawing room debates about skill vs. luck are fun but that's all they are. Who ever won that debate about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin? No one remembers because they weren't important to the REAL debate.

If you believe that people should be allowed to gamble in the privacy of their homes then it doesn't matter if its poker or slots or horseracing or bingo or a chess game. Just as if you believe in people being able to drink in the privacy of their homes it doesn't matter if its beer or brandy or wine or scotch.

No seriously what's the FOF?