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