Supreme Court Nom Elena Kagan Could be Online Poker Asset

Submitted by Guest on

Written by :

Guest

Published on :

For the past several years, the online poker landscape has been in a perpetual state of flux. Beginning with Chris Moneymaker's historic romp through the World Series of Poker, and in essence, launching the poker boom, the legality and the morality of online poker has been debated from everywhere from water coolers to the halls of Congress. It has been such a hot button topic at times that many of our nation's top lawmakers have attempted to define where it fits among forms of gambling and to figure out the feasibility of potential government regulation. Constituents of both sides of the arguments stand firm and are passionate in their beliefs, and a of right now, the only thing that is certain is that June 1, will bring even more uncertainty, that of course being the date that the banks are to be in compliance with the controversial UIGEA.

It seems however that the balance of power may indeed be on the verge of tipping towards the pro-online poker side as President Barack Obama's latest Supreme Court nominee appears to have an understanding and appreciation of the game of poker. Should this be true, it would appear to be a major win for those looking for regulation and a blow against former President Bush's controversial bill.

Just this week, Elena Kagan, a native New Yorker was introduced at a press conference. At the gathering, she was described by a well-informed associate as being "a poker player". Though it well may have been nothing more than a figure of speech, it was a curious choice of words, not lost among poker players keeping up with the situation. Any advantage gained is of the utmost importance given the amount of vital proposed poker legislation currently in the works. For instance, currently, Pennsylvania and Kentucky are the sites of landmark court cases specifically involving poker. A Pennsylvania court ruled that poker is a skill game in a case brought against a couple for hosting a poker game; a decision which was later overturned on appeal. This case in particular appears to be headed for a showdown at the US Supreme Court and having a judge who is a poker fan of some kind could only help matters. Meanwhile, the fight in Kentucky centers around the illegality of gambling as a whole as is seeking to determine if patrons are entitled to recoup any losses.

These two cases alone could go a long way in shaping the future of poker, and specifically online poker in the United States. This is truly a monumental moment in poker history. Will Kagan be enough to shift the balance of power in poker's favor?

Source:  www.aintluck.com

More Poker Articles Like This...

Online Poker's UIGEA Upheld

Netherlands cracking down on Online Poker

Kentucky to Block Online Poker Sites

New Hope in Overturning UIGEA

 

Related Content

Where Can I Bet on the World Series of Poker Final Table - 2026?

Where Can I Bet on the World Series of Poker Final Table - 2026?

The World Series of Poker main event is set to restart Monday, August 3, and betting will happen beyond the final table.
How Do Online Poker Laws Vary Around the World?

How Do Online Poker Laws Vary Around the World?

Online poker has fast become a worldwide sensation, but the regulations change significantly in each region. Some jurisdictions adopt online poker wholeheartedly and openly, others regulate it to the tee, and some restrict players completely.
Casino dealer surrounded by slots in backdrop

The Professional Gambler: Fame, Fortune and Failure!

Everyone has met that friend who swears they can beat the casino. They flash screenshots of wins, boast about secret systems, and brag about living like a king on chips and cards.
Chevy Chase Maryland Supreme Court Litigator, Poker Pro Gets 6 Year Prison Sentence for Tax Evasion

Chevy Chase Maryland Supreme Court Litigator, Poker Pro Gets 6 Year Prison Sentence for Tax Evasion

A judge ordered Thomas Goldstein to serve 6 years behind bars without the possibility of parole plus five years of supervised release thereafter with a jury having found the retired Supreme Court litigator guilty on 12 counts that included tax evasion.