Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle227
As to tangram's post, not sure if their 'why comment now' was directed at me or a general comment. If directed specifically to me, it is simple on two levels- first, I have residences in both the Austin area as well as the Houston area and second, the case is recently filed and is the specific reason the TxOAG punted on the Opinion.
It was a general comment, not directed towards Michelle227. It's my belief that nothing is likely going to happen until after the elections. Please follow the bouncing ball here:
1) Texas' system of justice is birfurcated between civil and criminal divisions. It is unique in that about the only way you can challenge a penal statute (not 100% but close) is to
actually be prosecuted under the statute in question.
2) What, at the end of the day, is most likely to cause a jurisidictional issue is the prospect of a civil court contruing a penal statute. This, again, is a no no in TX, with some exceptions which likely don't apply here. That, and of course, the issue of whether a civil court in Austin has jx over something that happens in San Antonio (which Michelle has noted).
3) The plaintiffs are almost certainly well aware of this and probably filed the lawsuit for the sole purpose of getting the opinion letter delayed. But the reality is that the AG apparently wants no part of this, especially close to an election where the Democrats are going to make a run at both the Governor's office (Abbott should win, but the fact he's only up 10 right now should be cause for concern), as well as the Senate race between Cruz and O'Rourke (Cruz is currently up 9, but this one is going to tighten up). Actually, it's pretty clever what plaintiffs did, but the allegedly far from stupid judge should toss this case at the first conference.
4) Let's say an opinion letter negative to the interests of the current model is issued. You should be able to get into court to challenge it, and there may be an argument (both substantive and procedural due process) that the inability to have a penal statute contstrued without a prosecution violated the 14th Amendment, but I'm getting way ahead of myself.
5) I'm all in favor of legal poker in Texas. But I'm also a realist, and being an outsider has its plusses and minuses. One of the plusses is that I can see the landscape dispassionately. It's just not realistic to not expect mass expansion of a business which may not be 100% legal, but certainly one the public wants, and to expect that the business be sustainable over the long term. Consider other vice-related businesses (weed, girls, etc.), which are not legal but generally are tolerated by LEOs. At the end of the day, for a zillion reasons (which you need to figure out on your own), the social club thingy is unsustainable, and any sort of legal gambling needs to be regulated. I'm very much aware you've had underground poker, slot machines, etc forever, but how that's going to be marketed to the public down the road is probably going to change. It's just not realistic to have this model, and have it tolerated in a couple of cities, less tolerated in another, and not tolerated in a fourth.
Anyway, best of luck to all the operators, and I'll be keeping an eye on this.