#191
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I really like the Professor's comment that ignoring the WTO has costs much higher than any perceived benefit, including the states' rights issue. He was right that the US should obey the WTO decision until the US legally withdraws from its remote gambling commitments. Problem is that our foes know that Congress will never grant the $100+ billion in trade concessions to the rest of the world to legally withdraw these commitments. They know that the negatively affected industries will use their political clout to avoid having to pay the price to lawfully ban online gambling under WTO.
Ms. Duke should have pointed out that if a state permits some form of gambling, then it should permit them all and if a state does not want gambling, then it should prohibit them all. Jay has sometimes indicated that Antiqua might accept that option. Of course, our foes know that politics will prevent most states from prohibiting all types of gambling. Almost all the states receive significant revenues from lotteries and/or casino gambling. Overall it seems that all our advocates, especially Ms. Duke, did an excellent job on the merits of legalizing online gambling. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I noticed that too. Don't know.????
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Anyone know when and where an archived version or transcript will be available? I missed a lot of it.
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Oops Duke is wrong about the states and the WTO.If any states opt out or any sports league opts out, we will still be outside the WTO decision. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. She should be arguing that no state or federal government should restrict the individual freedom to gamble online in their own home. However, we may be better off hiding the truth about the IGREA until the WTO grants IP sanctions to Antiqua. [/ QUOTE ] Weiler posed a hypothetical to Goodlatte along the lines of, "If the technolgy existed to allow remote gaming to only the states in which it was legal, what would be the DOJ's position?" I don't want to put words in his mouth, but doesn't this seem to imply that there might be some workaround room for states rights in regards to the WTO? [/ QUOTE ] I think this would've been a good time to introduce the "Commerce" clause and make a statement that by the very nature of the internet the States do not have that right to regulate Internet Gaming... |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Anyone else get their real player stream dumped?
D$D (posted for) |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know when and where an archived version or transcript will be available? I missed a lot of it. [/ QUOTE ] I believe it takes a couple months before they release the transcripts to the public. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Goodlatte sure did look flustered at the end, especially he wanted to debate Annie Duke on states' rights (and lost). What a tool.
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte sure did look flustered at the end, especially he wanted to debate Annie Duke on states' rights (and lost). What a tool. [/ QUOTE ] Is the hearing still on-going? Still unable to establish a connection. D$D (posted for) |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Hearing ending shortly after 2pm.
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Hearing ending shortly after 2pm. [/ QUOTE ] Thank you! |
|
|