Are Catholic Justices supposed to be pro-plaintiff?

Over at Vox Nova, Morning's Minion writes:

The Court has already issued a dozen rulings this term that limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations. The court is seen as tilting more toward business than even the Rehnquist court.

As for all those good pro-life people who cheered when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito to the Court-- I recommend the song that ended the Sopranos franchise: Don't Stop Believing...

I don't understand the complaint here.  Is the suggestion that, because Justices Roberts and Alito are declining to endorse plaintiffs' proposed interpretations of federal laws, their pro-life bona fides are somehow in question?  I'm not sure how much -- as a Catholic -- I should worry about the Supreme Court's willingness to "limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations." Again, I assume we're talking about cases where the Court is interpreting acts of Congress that, the Court thinks, "limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations." The suggestion that a willingness to sustain plaintiffs' lawsuits, or uphold huge damages awards, is a marker of fidelity to Catholicism, seems pretty unappealing; don't we need to know *something* about the merits of the disputes?