I think down this road leads a tautology because most classical definitions of consensus are such that taxing the wealthy more than the poor is considered a fair and equitable consensus. I don't like to leave assumptions and definitions unexamined so here's an analogy, most people who murdered steve don't believe that people who murdered steve should be punished for it - even though the majority of the population disagrees with that view we need to defend the minority of people that just murdered steve less their opinions be swept under by a tyrannical and unreasonable majority.

The majority absolutely can be tyrannical and the court of popular opinion is not considered the sole ethical decider - see philosophical discussions about whether certain historical events in the 1940s led to a society where some pretty extreme actions actually qualified as ethical. The society they occurred in publicly and openly approved of those actions but most of us would hesitate to call those actions ethical so there is merit in being hesitant to call the apparent ruling of the court of public opinion a consensus, but I think this particular case is more valid and self-reinforcing.

Interesting question though.