In order to fully appreciate the post by @jackk you have to take into account not only what he wrote but also what he did NOT write (i.e. read between the lines).
Before I get into what I read between the lines; here’s a quote from jackk in a different thread explaining why he so forcefully defends the Democrats despite writing earlier in the same thread that a Frum Yid should not stand behind either party.
“I defend the Democrats forcefully in the CR. They have positions that a Frum Yid should agree with and the Republicans have some positions that a Frum Yid should reject.
If everyone in the CR respected that there can be different views, I would barely have what to say. I am defending the Democrats from the views of those who believe that they are completely Evil and that Republicans are completely Righteous, and that it is assur to vote Democrat.”
With that being said here’s what I read between the lines:
1. jackk made it very clear that he’s angered by this ruling.
What jackk did NOT say is why he’s angered by the ruling. As someone who hasn’t shown the same amount of anger towards the slaughter of unborn babies, or to perverts being allowed to follow young girls into a locker-room under the guise that they woke up feeling like a female that morning- he’s clearly not concerned about the safety of others. If I had to guess what’s really bothering him over here- it’s that he was hoping that before the elections President Biden (or another Democrat) would remove the mask mandate and voters would forget about the price of gas and sky high inflation and vote for Democrats. Now that the mandate had been ruled as unconstitutional, and by a judge appointed by a Republican, that’s no longer an option.
2. jackk did say that he won’t take medical advice from a 35 year old judge…
What jackk did NOT say is that the judge wasn’t making the decision based on medical expertise- the decision was based on whether the CDC had the authority to make the decision in the first place. jackk also did NOT say that a judge is supposed to rule based on the law- not what they want the law to be. The judge’s hands were tied in this case.
3. jackk did say that the ABA rated the judge as not qualified.
What jackk did NOT say is that the rating was made based on the judge not having the recommended amount of legal experience. jackk also did NOT say that the ABA said that she “has a very keen intellect, a strong work ethic and an impressive resume” and that “her integrity and demeanor are not in question”. (You can check out her biography on Wikipedia just like I did.)
4. jackk did say that her admission to the bar was in 2012 and she had not tried a single case, civil or criminal… when she was given… a life-time appointment.
What jackk did NOT say is that Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan was NEVER a judge at all and that was a life-time appointment to an even higher court!
5. jackk did say that “they don’t give a hoot about living humans”.
What jackk DID say is “living” humans- read between the lines over there.
(As a side point I do think that Republicans care more about humans (both living and unborn) hence they are against abortion, against defunding the police and against taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves from the lawlessness that the Democrats are creating.)