I’m not sure why there is fighting on this thread. It seems that everyone agrees to the following points:
1. R’ Ovadia is entitled to an opinion and may say anything if it’s Halachically necessary and relevant, including attacking another person (e.g. R’ Stav).
2. R’ Schachter, R’ Willig, etc. are entitled to an opinion and may say anything if it’s Halachically necessary and relevant, including attacking another person (e.g. R’ Ovadia).
3. Random Rabbis from the RCA are not entitled to an opinion and may not say anything to attack another person (e.g. me, or R’ Ovadia) even if they feel it’s Halachically necessary and relevant.
Good, so the entire argument in this thread is about whether or not who will be the next Chief Rabbi is a “Halachically necessary and relevant”. Is that worth fighting so much over?
(Ironically, the right-wingers here are holding that it is such an issue while the not-as-right-wingers are holding it isn’t. See how things get much simpler when you boil them down?)