The article doesn't assume that at all. Just because a system is unable to live up to its ideals in all (or even most) cases, we should still be concerned if the ideals themselves erode. This is a silly way to downplay the central subject.
This article doesn't offer up compelling evidence that the "ideals themselves" are eroding. It's just a collection of anecdotal examples, showing in some cases it doesn't live up to the ideals, in the author's opinion.
The central subject is people refusing the statu quo of the current justicial system. The article does not assume that indeed, but reference to people that do (lawyers over 50 etc).
I stand behind my comment and loto-lawyer to illustrate how broken the system is until we find a better alternative.
your net worth should not have anything to do with "how much justice you can afford."
Please don't call names in arguments here. It's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) because it leads to much worse discussion. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
The relevant guideline covers this case clearly and hasn't changed in over a decade:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
That would break the same guideline in the same way. It isn't necessary to call names—it doesn't add information. It suffices to point out what's wrong with an argument and trust the reader to be smart enough to get it.
The article doesn't assume that at all. Just because a system is unable to live up to its ideals in all (or even most) cases, we should still be concerned if the ideals themselves erode. This is a silly way to downplay the central subject.