A Thought

Some time ago I read of the decisions that the US Supreme Court made, more than a century ago now, that were basically anti-worker. The reasoning was that the USA was founded on "opportunity", and that anything which restricted an individualism based on up yours to everyone else was bad. I don't actually see how they decided that from their constitution, but, more importantly, dog-eat-dog individualism does NOT promote opportunity - it promotes opportunity for the privileged who get education, etc, and thus - amongst its many biases - is racist, sexist, and so on: an equitable society is better at allowing ALL people opportunity. 

This is not the only bad decision made by courts: how do we make sure upper courts consider ALL aspects fully of cases? Is it enough to rely on lawyers and what applicants can afford, or do we need better funding of public interest bodies - TRUE public interest bodies, not mates clubs of the rich, elite and powerful?