I'm not referring to Judge John G. Roberts (whose judicial philosophy, I will admit, is more progressive than President Bush's current Supreme Court favorites). While reading Spencer Robins' editorial last week ("Roberts will bring neutrality"), I was disturbed by the similarities between his "liberal" or "Democratic" justification for supporting John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia's approach to the judiciary. This realization was particularly upsetting, in the knowledge that Robins has just assumed the leadership of the College Democrats.

Robins argues for "judicial neutrality" on key social issues such as legal abortion, sodomy laws and death penalty limitations. As he writes, "The debates over these issues would normally take place in various legislatures across the country … anyone who moves too far out of the mainstream would eventually lose his or her seat." In Stenberg v. Carhart, the 2000 Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of late-term abortions, Justice Scalia argued in his dissent that, "the Court should return this matter to the people … and let them decide, state by state, whether this practice should be allowed."

Scalia's judicial philosophy is premised on a limited interpretation of the Constitution that only guarantees the protection of an explicit number of rights by the federal government. It seems as though Robins' "judicial neutralism" does the exact same thing.

He argues that liberals have "tried to implement an interpretation of the Constitution that defends many of their beliefs." I don't think Robins understands one of the fundamental views of American progressives: We believe that the Constitution guarantees certain rights, including the right to have an abortion, the right of consensual adults to make their own decisions about their private sex life and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishments.

The role of an independent judiciary is to protect the country from a tyranny of the majority. The Supreme Court is far from perfect-a brief history of some key decisions can easily prove that fact. But it does serve to guarantee that minority rights are protected-regardless of the majority's will to do otherwise via the "various legislatures across the country."

I wish that Robins could see what the chairman of his own political party, Howard Dean, realizes: "John Roberts is the wrong man for the job." Roberts' "judicial neutrality" is, in fact, hostility to equality-be it gender, racial, sexual, socioeconomic or otherwise. I strongly urge you to call your senator today and ask him or her to vote NO on Roberts. The future of our rights depends on it.