I mean that's nice and all, but you're comparing the US to countries that literally don't enshrine that protection at all. It is not a universal principle of criminal justice that you have the right not to be confronted with evidence obtained improperly. Again: compare this to France, which doesn't even have an adversarial criminal justice system --- they run an inquisitorial system, with cooperating judges and prosecutors.

None of this is to say that the US system is better; it is better in some ways and worse in others (notably sentencing).

I'm comparing the US to a nation of laws. In a nation of laws, you can determine the outcome from the rules. In the US, you can't. In the US warrant rules don't apply. Chain of custody rules don't apply. Instead the judge extending 'good faith' to law enforcement when they fail to follow the rules applies.

A nation of laws doesn't exist when the judges discretion in favor of the Police who 'are trusted' and receive deferential accommodation over the rights of civilians to expect the laws/rules enforced on the government even if inconvenient.

Again, this assumes that the protections implied by search warrants in the United States are a universal principle of criminal justice, and they are not.

No, the assumption is that search warrant protections are part of the American law system (they are) but that the legal requirements around them are routinely ignored in America (they are) with arm waving and the term 'good faith', making the American system not a predictable system that follows it's rules, but one that is bent by judges around police 'failure' to follow the rules.

The French system can be completely different, but, if you follow the logic of the law, it's matches what happens in practice, it's a valid legal system. The USA does not have that, because while it pretends warrant are required in actuality they aren't and requirements/protections for citizens can be waived away by judges under 'good faith'.

This to me reads as an argument that no protections are better than protections applied inconsistently. Maybe on a message board, but if I was a defendant, it seems like the decision between the two would be easy to make.

Marginalised groups have argued for removal of protections because of inconsistent application. If the application is inconsistent the marginalised are the ones who suffer from that inconsistency. Those with the power to fix the underlying issues tend to be beneficiaries of that inconsistency, giving them little incentive to make changes. Frequently they don't even perceive there to be a problem because while inconsistent application is theoretically possible, their experience suggests that it just doesn't happen that often.

So many times people rail against a wealthy person who gets off lightly from some offense because their representatives have successfully argued that a punishment would be unduly harsh, or that there were particular mitigating circumstances. I usually disagree with people demanding a tougher punishment, but that is a similar principle at play. Personally I would rather have all persons charged to receive dispensation for circumstances rather than only a few elites. Similarly given the choice I'd want protections against illegal search and seizure to be for all, but when you have no power to make that happen, what is the best second option? A privileged subset, or everyone universally worse off?

Removal of protections because of inconsistent application sounds dumb.

Not if the inconsistency means the protection never really applied to you but the protection for others acted as hindrance to amending the system to providing a consistent protection.