Comment by thaumasiotes

> and it ruled gambling legislation was a states rights issue.

What did that change? Gambling legislation was a states' issue before. You might have noticed that different states had wildly different gambling regimes.

(...and all federal legislation is a states' rights issue?)

> Now the argument that would have appeared batshit insane a decade ago, that there’s no federal way to prevent this[,] is [the] de facto law of the land.

You're talking about a law that was invalidated eight years ago, and passed 24 years before that. Which position would have looked insane more of the time?