The worse case is majority rights being subject to the whims and abuses of a minority. Protecting minorities shouldn’t mean that this is ok!

P.S. minorities here could mean anything i.e the mega rich, the “legal” cartels, etc.

How is that "worse"?

Abusing any population, is abusing a population. What you just argued is akin to walking into a room full of pregnant high school girls, and declaring one to be the "most" virgin.

Besides, the point of the Constitution, is to make it difficult for such things to happen in one direction or another in the political dimension. Which it does pretty well. If you want it to provide protections in the dimension of private economic activity, you can do that, just make an amendment and build a consensus.

If this new amendment which you draft to ostensibly protect this "majority", can't build the requisite consensus, then not only is it doubtful that it actually protects a majority, but it also shouldn't be an amendment. That's just democracy since the "majority" you claim to be serving doesn't seem to want the amendment.

There are twenty-three states where judges all the way up to the State Supreme Court are elected, rather than being appointed. These include partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and legislative elections.

https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states