Yes, there are judges in CA that understand the Constitution and are willing to take bold action to uphold it. Some notable quotes from Judge Chalfant when he correctly ruled last Friday that LA County had not met its burden to single out churches and ban indoor services at GCC:
"THE GOVERNOR CAN'T JUST ISSUE POLICIES WITHOUT A RATIONAL BASIS TO DO SO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE HE NEVER HAS DEVELOPED A RATIONAL BASIS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BUSINESSES. THIS IS ALL SORT
OF SHOOTING FROM THE HIP. WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE AT THE BEGINNING OF AN EMERGENCY ...
OF SHOOTING FROM THE HIP. WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE AT THE BEGINNING OF AN EMERGENCY ...
AND LESS UNDERSTANDABLE AS TIME GOES ON. THAT'S POINT ONE..."
"ALTHOUGH THE MOVING PAPER PURPORTS TO TREAT CHURCHES THE SAME AS OTHER BUSINESSES, THAT IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO HEIGHTENED PROTECTION, NOT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HAIR SALON."
"ALTHOUGH THE MOVING PAPER PURPORTS TO TREAT CHURCHES THE SAME AS OTHER BUSINESSES, THAT IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY WRONG. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO HEIGHTENED PROTECTION, NOT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HAIR SALON."
"SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN ONLY RESTRICT A CHURCH IF YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, AS OPPOSED TO A HAIR SALON."
"SO WHEN THE DEFENSE SAYS ON PAGE 2, 'PRIOR TO 2020, GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH AND ALL ITS MEMBERS WERE TO BELIEVE THAT DURING AN EMERGENCY, WORSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN...
"SO WHEN THE DEFENSE SAYS ON PAGE 2, 'PRIOR TO 2020, GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH AND ALL ITS MEMBERS WERE TO BELIEVE THAT DURING AN EMERGENCY, WORSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN...
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION,' IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IT IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT."
"THE PLAINTIFF SAYS THAT THESE CHURCH SERVICES DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH. THE DEFENSE IS CORRECT, THAT THE ONLY THING THAT THE PLAINTIFF CITES ARE NEWS ARTICLES...
"THE PLAINTIFF SAYS THAT THESE CHURCH SERVICES DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH. THE DEFENSE IS CORRECT, THAT THE ONLY THING THAT THE PLAINTIFF CITES ARE NEWS ARTICLES...
THAT THE VIRUS HAS BEEN SPREAD AT CHURCH SERVICES AROUND THE COUNTRY. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE."
"SO I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY OR THE GOVERNOR HAS ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. I JUST DON'T. YOU CANNOT TREAT THEM LIKE A HAIR SALON."
"SO I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY OR THE GOVERNOR HAS ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. I JUST DON'T. YOU CANNOT TREAT THEM LIKE A HAIR SALON."
"IN MY VIEW, THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. I DO NOT BELIEVE -- I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE COUNTY HAVE NOT TREATED CHURCHES DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER BUSINESS, AND THEY HAVE TO. THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO."
"HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ARGUE NOW, FIVE MONTHS INTO THIS PANDEMIC, YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE STUFF UP AFTER FIVE MONTHS AND SAY, WELL, WE'VE GOT TO REGULATE CHURCHES, WE CAN'T ALLOW INDOOR SERVICES. NO, NO, NO. THEY NEED TO BE LOOKING AT
THIS ISSUE CAREFULLY IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE."
THIS ISSUE CAREFULLY IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE."
"IT'S YOUR BURDEN . . .TO SHOW IT'S NOT JUST THAT YOU HAVE A RISK, BUT THAT RESTRICTIONS ON THE CHURCH RESTRICTING FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ARE NECESSARY UNDER A STRICT SCRUTINY TEST, NOT JUST THEY'RE A BEAUTY PARLOR, BUT THEY'RE A CHURCH. YOU HAVE TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY."
