I’d challenge that the person as an individual is more important than where they went to school. Perhaps there are others who were excluded due to not having gone to Harvard along the way, and in some abstract sense that’s unfair, but in a very real sense your school doesn’t make the person, the person is the person and they went to a school. I am curious if any of the justices are legacy students or if all were admitted via a standard merit based selection process. It so, and given Harvard law and Yale law are regarded top law schools on their own merit, what is specifically the issue? I would definitely expect a statistical weighting to the top schools in any field for the top positions in that field, no?

What becomes concerning is when legacy students dominate the court. That is categorically unfair by structure, and it would speak to a hereditary elite in power. This was, as I’m sure you remember, the distinguishing factors of GWB vs Obama. Obama walked in those circles by earning his chair. GWB… well…