Bob Herbert (Times Select) says we need "enlightened" judges to protect the little guy:

Mr. Alito is on his way toward confirmation. He will probably vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. He will not be a champion of voting rights for minorities, or a bulwark against racial and gender discrimination. If his record is any indication, and we have very little else to go on, he will almost always side with the powerful interests, whether in government or the great corporations, against the little guy.

Sam Alito is the kind of guy who, rather than lend a helping hand, would slam the trap door on less-privileged individuals seeking opportunities similar to those he enjoyed. [snip]

The great post-World War II advances in civil rights and civil liberties, and the protection of ordinary citizens against the depredations of the rich and powerful, would never have happened without the courageous efforts of the enlightened justices who served on the Supreme Court in that era. They would surely never have happened with the likes of Alito, Thomas and Scalia making the important calls.

It will take many years to reverse this dismal tide. You might keep that in mind the next time you're considering whether to vote - or for whom to vote - in a presidential election.

This is the same shtick we got from Senator Kennedy last week and also from Senator Kohl, who suggested that judges need to "apply a more expansive, imaginative view of the Constitution" to protect the "little guy" and to right historic wrongs.

One of the many problems with this argument is that the sort of "enlightened" judicial activism Herbert praises can often lead to bad law with terrible results for the "little guy" -  as we saw recently with the Kelo decision. Indeed, the "expansive, imaginative view of the Constitution" preferred by liberals led directly to Roe v. Wade - a law that some would say denies basic protections to the littlest and most vulnerable among us.