On the other hand.
Localized oppression can be far more personal.
The heyday of subsidiarity was the Middle Ages, where the lord of the Manor often held the rights of Low, Middle and High Justice.
IOW, your judge was very likely to be the guy your dispute was with.
In general, lower and middle class people were always in favor of the King’s justice. He might be distant, but he was also unbiased for that very reason. In fact, the King generally had an incentive to stomp on over-mighty subjects oppressing his less powerful subjects.
Much of the history of the late Middle Ages and early modern periods is of an alliance between the King and the lower and (especially) middle classes.
Yes I DO see your point but what you are describing is 'appellate' justice, the ancient "appeal to the King" of English Common Law. When effective, it was because the Monarch had the ability (usually) to assemble larger military than local nobility. Note this year being the 800th anniversary of the most notable exception, the Magna Carta!
Still, while I accept your argument, this is one of the reasons for the Founders encoding the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights! Local authorities usually cannot draw upon military assets (Posse Comitatus Act) and thus end up being equally armed with the citizenry. This tends to mitigate local oppression except in historical times of de jure oppression like the Southern States racial suppression.
A real life example of local government versus armed citizenry can be found in the 1946 West Virginia "McMinn County War" / aka "Battle of Athens." A local 'Political Boss' corrupt county government sought to retain power in the face of returned US Military Vets who desired a political change. The end results was that the complacent WV State and Federal Governments were forced to take notice and the corrupt local government was changed by efforts from below and above!