@kewhittington, I agree with your primary point, namely, that the Court will (& should) be less deferential if a Governor leaves restrictions in place for many months on end, w/o reassessment. But of course they won't do--and aren't doing--any such thing: /1
The Governors are adjusting the restrictions virtually weekly as the evidence and medical needs change. As Roberts wrote, it's very dynamic.
Three objections, however:
First, Kavanaugh wasn't "raising real issues." He made unfounded assertions, ... /2
Three objections, however:
First, Kavanaugh wasn't "raising real issues." He made unfounded assertions, ... /2
... such as that there was discrimination against church gatherings, when in fact California was treating churches more favorably than most such analogous gatherings. /3
Second, yes, "Governors will need to explain why their specific restrictions on churches are actually justifiable in light of the current state of the pandemic" But that's exactly what Newsom did here (see attached)--something else Kavanaugh ignored. /4 
Finally, you didn't mean to write this, did you?:
"Citing Harry Blackmun, as the chief justice did, is always a risky thing to do." /5
"Citing Harry Blackmun, as the chief justice did, is always a risky thing to do." /5
