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.
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."
I have plenty of examples to back this up.
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.
"Silly" modifies "way," meaning the line of argumentation, not the speaker. Are you changing the guidelines to prohibit criticism of argument?
"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."