What’s the contention. The modern constantly knock Daas Torah, both here and elsewhere. They make the repugnant comparison of Daas Torah to r’l ‘papal infallibility’ and use many other ways to knock Daas Torah. This is no secret, it is quite open. We see it all the time.
From R. Aharon Lichtenstein, “Legitimization of Modernity: Classical and Contemporary” in Leaves of Faith (Ktav: 2004), vol. 2 p. 294:
There are many apologists who contend that the primary issues are matters of haskafah, to which authority per se is far less relevant, and with respect to which classical sources are arguably self-sufficient. This brings us to the familiar shibboleth of da’at Torah. This concept is generally in disrepute among votaries of modern Orthodoxy, who have sought to challenge both its historical progeny and its philosophic validity.
R. Mordechai Willig on Daas Torah:
…Advice is, by definition, not binding. One who seeks rabbinic advice and chooses to ignore it does not violate halachah. Indeed, if he is convinced, based on superior information, that the Rabbi has erred, he should ignore the advice.