Or more simply, the ends do not justify the means, even if, as you point out and I agree in principle, the ends in this case are potentially good.
The prospect of Trump in power in what's arguably no longer a republic run under the Rule of Law has gotten a lot of people to reconsider their position on this (and I share a concern, despite or perhaps even more because I voted for him), and I'll close with the classic Man of All Seasons quote:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
I certainly could have gotten his intent wrong, but for now his words have to stand as written, and the issue of the Rule of Law is both entirely relevant to this case and to current events in the US.
The more charitable interpretation of SubiculumCode's words, and the one that does not need to assume facts not in evidence, would be that "This is shit" should be taken to mean, "This is terrible news". Which would either way be a normal human reaction, and a valid opinion, despite your attempts to portray otherwise.
To be precise, the law and regulations were appropriate decades ago, when it protected workers, but in its current form, oppressed them into long underpaid, non-livable, labor. In my view, the Obama administration change in regulation, now blocked, was restoring the original effects and outcomes of those laws and regulations, and probably as originally intended by those whom passed it.
All I can say is that I'm now quite certain I wasn't misreading the narrow part of the intent of your words that I initially commented on.
That is too much of a reach. There's a considerable distance between criticism of a law (or the lack of one) and of the rule of law.