Alito's judicial philosophy a dereliction of judicial responsibility

In the final day of Judge Samuel Alito’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the take-home message was “judicial self-restraint.” Alito claims that a judicial philosophy of self-restraint is necessary, as judges are not elected. Thus, judges are not as democratic as the Congress or the Executive. But that conservative talking point of a judicial philosophy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary.

The intent of the judiciary is to be a safeguard for the minority. It has always been expected that the majority would pursue the will of the people through all legislative and executive means. But what protection does this leave for the minority? None, unless you have an unelected branch of government charged exclusively with interpreting the limits of power under the Constitution. There were some things believed by our Founders to be above the whim of the ruling party. Even when unpopular, these rights – including those of minority religions, controversial speech and the due process of accused criminals – were deemed crucial to life in a free society. As a result, you can see how the judiciary could be unpopular to the majority, but that makes it no less essential.
As a result of this sort of governmental organization, the danger is profound when judges attempt to take a passive approach to juris prudence. In a judge’s role, refusing to act to protect the majority is de facto support of the majority. And make no mistake, Judge Alito sides with power

Their belief in restraint is not some attempt to be more just, but rather an attempt to fundamentally alter the role of the judiciary from a body of minority protection to an impotent legitimization of the majority’s tyranny.