I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Would it have pleased you more if, oh let's just for the sake of argument say: the government had to get some kind of a court order to get the information?

Well, the grandparent did say "There is no oversight or limitations."

So, yeah. I believe it would please 'em more if there was a court order involved.

Sorry. Sarcasm doesn't come across well: there is a court order, but because Apple decided to not help, they were removed from the oversight chain, hence arguably weakening the oversight.

Note that the FBI got the court order in a hearing to which Apple was not invited. The court gave Apple an opportunity to respond, and it was in the middle of that process when the FBI found another way in.

It's not like the court told Apple "you need to immediately start working on this" and Apple said "no, we refuse".

If the government gets a search warrant and seizes a safe from your home, they don't need the safe-maker's permission to crack it open.

They would if the safe was purely digital, based on vendor-controlled platform DRM that granted the vendor and only the vendor additional access to the safe.

Yes, as long as there was a public, adversarial argument about it, not some classified, logic-bending "memo" from a lawyer, or some one-sided star chamber FISA "court" order.

There is oversight and limitations. The government still needs a search warrant or legal ownership of a device in order to hack it. You're perfectly entitled to make your stuff harder to search, but once the government has a court order or warrant for the info, they're entitled to all the hacking they need to extract the data. Stop and think for a minute about what you're proposing, that the government need to now get a second search warrant for the removal of encryption. That's absolutely ridiculous. If they seize a safe from your home, they don't need special permission to crack it open.

They don't need a search warrant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Once it is in their possession, for whatever cheap and loose justification, they will open it.

Your argument is under the assumption that they are not corrupt.

'Corrupt' has a very specific meaning. It does not mean 'without morals', 'bad', or 'evil'. Whether or not the police or FBI will unlock this iPhone is most likely completely unrelated to whether or not they are corrupt.