November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[JPFisher55]

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.