Narrow Search

Comment Archives: Stories: Columns: Last 7 Days

Re: “I thought my baseball card collection had value. It did, but only to me.

Now, if you were to have instead spent that money on pokemon cards... you would have come up on the top.
I spent about $30 on pokemon cards when I was a kid, and managed to turn that $30 into $200.
mostly first edition and shadowless cards. But a good number of rare japanese ones at that.

sorry your baseball cards werent worth anything.. :(
I dont think anyone particularly cares about sport cards anymore. Baseball itself is also dying out.

Posted by Zrcalo Sveta on 07/10/2014 at 12:01 AM

Re: “Supreme Court rulings reinforce workplace discrimination, kneecap public-sector unions

In answer to Rataplan, whom I take to be a male -- yes?? -- I'd suggest that he, I and the male justices of the Supreme Court tread lightly when telling women what kinds of contraceptives they should or shouldn't choose. Are some women having too much sex? That's another question about which we males might better -- as one federal judge said -- STFU.

I will say this about the part of the Affordable Care Act that seeks to make contraceptives free to women as part of the basic health-insurance package: Women get pregnant, men don't. And preventing unwanted pregnancies strikes me as good public policy and one the anti-abortion rights crowd should support.

Otherwise, if you're in doubt about what women want, I'd refer you to the articles from Slate and the Nation -- written by women -- that I recommended in my earlier comment.

On the more general subject of corporate personhood, I'd suggest that the Court majority is intentionally chipping away at Congress's power, under Article I of the Constitution, to regulate commerce.

Citizens United was part of it, giving corporations a free-speech right that logically should attach only to individuals (including corporate executives speaking as individuals).

When it upheld the Affordable Care Act, the Court cited Congress's power to tax, but only after the same five-member male majority ruled that Congress could NOT require businesses to offer health insurance under the Commerce clause of Article I.

Now, the majority asserts in Hobby Lobby that corporations have religious rights. Does that mean that a company can discriminate against women, minorities, gays, under the guise of "religion"? If Muslims own the company, could they require all women employees to cover their heads while in public? Could a Christian owner demand more hours of work from men than from women -- or pay women less -- under some misguided reading of scripture?

Early in the 20th century, the Supreme Court ruled that any law attempting to limit the number of hours a corporation could require of its workers violated the 14th Amendment's due-process ("liberty of contract") clause.

If a worker was willing to put in more than 60 hours a week, the Court ruled, it would violate her due process rights if the law said she couldn't. Of course, that worker's "willingness" might depend on whether the company told her she'd be fired if unwilling -- but then as now, the Court weighed the power of a corporation against that of a single worker and insisted they were "equal."

That was the Lochner case -- you can read it about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._Ne…

Posted by Bob Geary, INDY Opinion Columnist on 07/08/2014 at 2:48 PM

Re: “Supreme Court rulings reinforce workplace discrimination, kneecap public-sector unions

Glad to see the left is upset with SCOTUS, too. The judiciary is clearly the most failed branch of our federal government. And I completely disagree with this article-- these recent decisions were OK ones, trivial though they were.

Posted by ProudlyUnaffiliated on 07/08/2014 at 12:11 AM

Re: “Dix is saved: Witnessing the birth of a great urban park

There is more crime everyday and more people convicted and found guilty for mental illness. Now a major mental hospital is being shut down because people want to be like others and have a park. Build your park someplace else. I hate what this world is coming to!

Posted by Danny Marshall Weston on 07/07/2014 at 11:59 PM

Re: “Supreme Court rulings reinforce workplace discrimination, kneecap public-sector unions

Please, pray tell, explain how that women employees may obtain 16 of Obama's ordered/government-stamp-of-approval 20 contraceptive devices (80 percent) that ARE PROVIDED ALREADY BY HOBBY LOBBY INSURANCE, yet somehow these women's rights are trampled because they cannot go on without the four abortion pills the SCOTUS did not FORCE the privately-owned company to supply. Should we pass the collection plate/hat for any Hobby Lobbyist/Lobbynista (?) desirous of provided-by-employer-insured abortions that only can be obtained with one of the pills in question and not the 16 available from the company? Are the pills outrageously expensive? Are the HL "associates" making so little they are destitute of funds and cannot buy them for themselves? Are they engaging in unprotected sex so much they are at constant risk of being impregnated and thus need a vast supply of the pills in question? Inquiring minds want to know.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Rataplan on 07/07/2014 at 2:31 PM

Re: “Supreme Court rulings reinforce workplace discrimination, kneecap public-sector unions

Excellent explainer on Slate.com about what the Supreme Court's male majority did AFTER Hobby Lobby to make their decision much worse … or to make clear just how big a can of crap they'd handed us in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol…

Also recommend this piece by Katha Pollitt on the male justices' lack of knowledge about how the contested contraceptives actually work … as she asks, when did facts cease to matter to the Court?

http://www.thenation.com/article/180499/wh…

Posted by Bob Geary, INDY Opinion Columnist on 07/07/2014 at 11:03 AM

Re: “I thought my baseball card collection had value. It did, but only to me.

hey Niel. to answer your questions about autographs. I go to sportscardforum.com. I find the address of the player I am looking for. send them a letter, their card and a return envelope. usually 95 percent of the time they sign and return. send them a letter telling them how much you enjoyed their years of play. it is a great hobby. also gives me something to pass down to my sons when they get older

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by jaymz887 on 07/04/2014 at 11:14 PM

Re: “Supreme Court rulings reinforce workplace discrimination, kneecap public-sector unions

The three female justices on the Court are pissed:

ttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html?

Posted by Bob Geary, INDY Opinion Columnist on 07/04/2014 at 9:49 AM

Re: “The REAL ID Act's costly implications for North Carolina Latino communities

If you allow one illegal alien to remain in the U.S., get a driver's license, get a job, etc. you have a problem with 12 million of them. The standing immigration laws were passed by plural congresses and signed into law by standing U.s. Presidents. The sad plight of some illegal aliens should not be a concern in the enforcement of standing laws. If you are not going to enforce immigration laws against illegal aliens, then why should shoplifting laws be enforced. Both crimes are misdemeanors, but a second offense of shoplifting is not elevated to a felony. A second offense of illegal immigration is a felony. The U.S. is a nation of laws, not of men and women who are bleeding-heart liberals.

Now, about illegal alien children born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment says that every person born in the U.S., who is under the jurisdiction of the United States, is a citizen of the United States. If Rosa Mendez, a pregnant illegal alien, falls over the border into the U.S. and delivers triplets on American soil, are those little Mexicans U.S. citizens? NO! A person born in the U.S. is only a U.S. citizen when that person is under the legal jurisdiction of the United States. An illegal alien who crosses the border illegally is not under U.S. jurisdiction at that time. That's why they are supposed to be deported, not put in U.S. jails to serve lengthy sentences. At the time they enter illegally into the U.S., they are Mexican citizens under the jurisdiction of Mexico. If they enter the U.S. on VISA or as an official visitor, they are under legal U.S. jurisdiction. The bottom line is that no illegal alien should be given a driver's license, because as an illegal alien it is almost impossible to sue them in a State or federal court. They can commit crimes while driving with impunity.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Norton R. Nowlin on 07/03/2014 at 10:03 AM

Our Guides

© 2014 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation