Law is an interesting example, cuz it has so many points of the non-static nature of all of this. The number of people on the SC changes. The relative status o

Law is an interesting example, cuz it has so many points of the non-static nature of all of this. The number of people on the SC changes. The relative status of being a fancy defense lawyer changes. We could in the future set term limits to court judges. there are appelate courts (which are pretty close to the top)!. We could pack the court! We could also make it so that being a lawyer isn't actually prestigious, as a society. We could also stop just choosing people from Harvard & Yale. There are so many choices as a society about what is done, and how many people are or are not needed in certain roles, that the implicit premise in all of this (that the current state of things involve some static limits, _and_ that we have reached those limits right now, instead of 100 years ago or 100 years from now) doesn't stand. Even if I agree that everybody in US elite political circles going through law school is extremely bizarre and bad, I don't think either argument presented in the article holds up.