Now
Mostly Cloudy and Breezy
35°
High
36°
Low
13°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 3/11: By law or by judges

Comments 6 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Saturday, Mar 11, 2006 - 12:10:22 am CST

The March 4 Lincoln Journal Star editorial titled “Nebraska case offers test for judicial activism” seemed to be more of a political statement than a well thought-out opinion. It maintains that those who opposed judicial activism previously now are hoping for it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Judicial activism, as I can best define it, is when judges legislate from the bench. That is not the function of the judiciary. Creating law is the function of the legislative branch of government, Congress. The partial-birth abortion ban has been passed by the members of the Senate and the members of the House on three different occasions.

One of the court’s roles is to determine the constitutionality of a law. Because the Constitution states that each person is endowed by his creator with the right to life and liberty, these powerless third-trimester children, who are viable and can sustain life outside of their mothers, deserve the protection promised by the Constitution.

On the converse, finding the “right” to an abortion in a privacy clause is completely subjective and questionable. The decree that abortion was to be legal in our country was a blatant example of the court creating law.

Clearly, the ban on partial-birth abortion is the will of the people, ergo the three occasions that it passed through Congress. Are we to be ruled by law or by judges? For the Journal Star to insinuate that pro-lifers are in favor of judicial activism in this regard is insulting and indicates muddled thinking.

Dorothy Westphal, Lincoln

Inborn traits

Religious groups are not “denouncing” the intersexed. They seek to help those burdened with a genetic disorder, much as trying to help people with physical handicaps.

I wonder whether Steve Ramos (letter, March 2) would discourage physical therapy for a child born with cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy. No? But God made the child that way!

The same can be said for mental disorders, such as pedophilia. Should pedophiles practice their inborn characteristics? Why not? If it’s inborn, it must be good, right?

W. Jesse Weins, Lincoln

Another vision

To Scott Liggett (letter, March 1), concerning his idea of creating tax-free enterprise zones for cellulosic ethanol producers:

Finally! Someone in Nebraska has real vision for ethanol production! For a variety of reasons, corn-based ethanol does not have a significant, if any, role in America’s energy future. Unfortunately, the corn lobby is far too influential at present to change that scenario.

To answer your question: No, our political leaders do not have the moxie to inaugurate your idea — at least not yet. All good ideas eventually bear fruit, however.

Pete Letheby, Grand Island

Good, loving family man

Orval Borgialli just passed away. He was not only a good, loving family man, but he also was a friendly and caring boss at the Bob Devaney Center. He treated his staff with respect and kindness.

One day I was working a swimming event when the weather was getting bad. By 8 p.m. it was turning into freezing rain. He told me to go home and please call him when I did get home so he wouldn’t worry.

That’s the kind of boss he was.

Virginia M. Woodrum, Lincoln

Just one reason

I’ll admit I voted for term limits basically because of one person and his antics. I’m sure it will be no surprise to many when I say it’s Ernie Chambers.

I do find it ironic that this career politician, who represents the most crime-ridden district in Nebraska, is dead set against granting his law-abiding constituency the constitutional right of self-protection.

Will Nebraska lose some experienced senators? Of course, but this “career politician” needs to see the door ASAP.

Jim E. McLaughlin, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Allen T. wrote on March 11, 2006 2:24 am:
" Conservatives define “activists” as judges that find certain rights to privacy in the Constitution that can not win at the ballot box. Conservatives' view, that activist judges create law that can not win at the ballot box, has particular merit as a definition of judicial activism. When judges make such decisions, they take the power away from the voter and endow themselves with the right to make social decisions. Often it is the unwritten “right to privacy” found in the "emanations and penumbras" of the Constitution. (Look those words up for a laugh if you don’t know what they mean). Liberals define “activist judges” as those that overturn any law enacted by Congress, thereby taking away the power of the elected officials and giving it to life-time appointed judges that are not subject to a voting constituency. The Supreme Court has struck down numerous Congressional acts as unconstitutional. The Lopez decision in 1995, often receives the most attention. Congress passed a law, under the commerce clause, banning the possession of firearms near schools. The Supreme Court struck down that law, noting that the possession of guns on school grounds has nothing to do with commerce. The Supreme Court must be able to overturn laws that do not comport with the Constitution. Otherwise, the Supreme Court (the final arbiter of the Constitution) becomes little more than a red stamp for the Congress and the President. The Supreme Court must also be able to recognize Constitution rights, such as the integration of schools after Brown v. Board of Education, despite pressure from the masses. Of course, integration of schools can trace its roots back to specific Constitutional Text, i.e. the 14th Amendment. Abortion rights, however, can not be traced back to specific textual support in the Constitution. That is why I see the Court’s forcing of integration and proper and the Court’s decision in Roe as activism. "

 Eric wrote on March 11, 2006 4:09 am:
" Oh common, Dorothy, the kids don't even have a Social Security Number yet. The question isn't "Are we to be ruled by law or by judges?" The question is are we going to be ruled by the law or the constitution. Judges are the ones who decipher the constitution and the constitution's intentions, not politicians of all people! "

 Barry wrote on March 11, 2006 4:15 am:
" In response to Dorothy's opinion on "judicial activism" - the truth is that judges do make law each time they make a ruling. One things that makes our judicial system special is that each time a case is heard, judges are bound by jurisprudence - or to follow decisions made before. This is just to keep the government from going back and forth on such cases. Although it seems like the Legislative branch is only for lawmaking, just remember that the Judicial has just about as much lawmaking power as anyone in the govnerment. "

 Steve R wrote on March 11, 2006 9:35 am:
" Jesse: Thanks for responding. It was mostly my little jab at the religious right and their fixation on denouncing the 5% of our population that is homosexual. My friend asked his pastor about my question: "an intersexed person would be just fine so long as they choose one mate and stuck with them monogamously. Really, it's the same standard we'd apply to any other "single-sexed" person." I got some responses here the day the letter was printed. Many said God hates the sin not the sinner. Yet when people publicly denounce homosexuality, they seem to forget that. I am straight, married, and grew up Catholic. Kind of like how Christians say they are being attacked, I feel the same about homosexuals. I guess in both cases just keep the fact that you are gay or religious to yourself. Do not parade around or recruit, and nobody will be offended. nobody will attack you over issues if they do not have to have them in their face all the time. "

 Stan wrote on March 11, 2006 3:11 pm:
" "Judicial Activism" is when a judge makes a ruling that conservatives don't agree with. Regarding Ernie Chambers, he's the only one in the legislature that has any sense. I shutter to think how the "good ol'boys " are going to behave when he's gone. And speaking of "good ol' boys", I think the picture on the front page of todays LJS says a lot. Those are the kind of quality people that are going to be running around with hidden guns. What percentage of Nebraskans really want this law? "

 Bill wrote on March 11, 2006 5:42 pm:
" I applaud gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders who are learning to live with their birth defect. However, pedophilia is a defect that should not be celebrated in a similar manner. Time and evidence has proven that like homosexuality it cannot be cured, and since it is harmful to the victim of the pedophile, Jessica's Law should be put on the ballot for Nebraska in November. "

Ads by Yahoo!