Gavin Newsom is worried.
And rightfully so.
Calls to recall the California governor have picked up steam recently, the motion to recall is in reponse to his increasingly orwellian Covid-19 over-regulations.
Newsom recieved widespread backlash after he instituted widespread regulations choking off commerce and small business, while he dined and drank in upscale resturants.
The Governor was publically rebuked by several members of California law enforcement, and now judges are also smacking down his unconstitutional and hypocritical left-wing nonsense.
Judge Pulskamp, a Superior Court Judge recently ruled an injunction against Newsom’s unconstitutional targeting of The Catholic Church by way of over-regulation and discimination.
Here are the facts:
The Daily Wire reported:
A California Superior Court judge issued an injunction against Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s planned COVID-19 restrictions on a Catholic priest and his parishes earlier this week, citing the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.
Judge Gregory Pulskamp slapped down Newsom’s mandates on Thursday in a case brought against state, local, and municipal officials by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Father Trevor Burfitt and his several churches. The complaint, which can be read here, argued that Newsom and those under his authority were discriminating against religious institutions in the name of COVID-19.
Pulskamp’s ruling took particular issue with the provisions of Newsom’s recent “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and his “Regional Stay at Home Order,” asserting that such orders failed to treat houses of worship in a manner “equal to the favored class of entities,” which would include “big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.”
Hillfaith also had more to say:
The judge singled out Newsom’s recently issued “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” and “Regional Stay at Home Order” as failing to satisfy the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom of worship and practice because they aren’t applied equally and in the least restrictive manner necessary to achieve an essential public interest.
“In this case, the restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ because they assign entities into disparate classifications, which results in religious activities being treated less favorably than comparable secular activities,” Pelskamp wrote.
“For example, the ‘Purple Tier’ of the ‘Blueprint for a Safer Economy,’ and the most recent ‘Regional Stay at Home Order,’ both impose a total ban on indoor religious services, while simultaneously permitting a wide range of secular indoor activities to varying degrees.
“Entities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – include big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.