Libertarian Librarian

So, are you agreeing with the link you have?
I would like to see more judges care about the 'little guy', but as long as politicians keep nominating them, I don't see it happening.
 

In the link in Nick's post, Bazelon says, "In almost none of these cases, though, does Alito seem like a little-guy champion. He seems like a judge who dutifully follows the law. When the law instructs him to find for the criminal defendant or the plaintiff, he does so." What's wrong with a judge who dutifully follows the law and finds for the defendant or the plaintiff as directed by the law?

I always understood a judge to be a neutral referee, with a standing knowledge of the law, who can impartially rule on a dispute between two parties based upon precedent and existing law. I don't want a judge to be a "little-guy champion," because that indicates that the judge will not be impartial in cases involving the little-guy. A judge who is biased in favor of one party may not rule based upon the law, but rather based upon the best interest of the party that holds his favor.

Besides, when most advocates for the downtrodden make a public plea for their clients, they are usually asking for equal protection and to be treated fairly under the law. Let the lawyers be the champions for their clients, little-guy or otherwise. The judges don’t need to be the champions for anyone; they need to be impartial and pass down rulings based upon the law.

If the law doesn't protect the little-guy, then we need to contact our legislators and demand that they create new laws that do. If a judge finds for the little-guy because that judge is a "little-guy champion," not because the judge is adhering to the law, then that would basically be the judicial activism or legislating from the bench which is often bandied about.
 

Yeah, what Mojo said!