It’s been almost a week since the trial and we still don’t have a ruling.
But at Newsom’s press conference today, the LA Times asked him about our lawsuit. Here’s how he defended himself, in his own words: “We did what we thought was appropriate.”
The whole problem, of course, is that the Governor has a very different idea of what’s “appropriate” than our Founding Fathers did. In fact, he completely ignored the part of the reporter’s question asking him if he’s “ruling by fiat” and if he’ll “be more measured in the future.”
As to the ruling, it’s a little surprising we haven’t heard anything yet. But it’s understandable, given that there are several questions to be decided:
(a) whether to rule on a technicality or proceed to the merits; (b) whether to rule for the Plaintiffs or the Defendant; (c) how broadly to interpret the Emergency Services Act; (d) whether to declare the Act unconstitutional; (e) whether to grant a permanent injunction; (f) how broadly to craft such an injunction; (g) whether to make the ruling effective immediately.
So if we do get our preferred outcome – a ruling in our favor that immediately and broadly restrains the Governor – there are different paths to getting there.
Over the last few days, people from all walks of life and political persuasions have been asking me about the case. Many have even told me they voted for Gavin Newsom but think he’s accumulated way too much power. This affirms my belief that this can be a unifying moment where our state renews its commitment to foundational principles.
At the trial, Gov. Newsom’s attorney said these principles – separation of powers, republican government, and the rule of law – only work well “in theory.” I’d say over two centuries of American history show they work pretty well in practice too.
I’ll send an update as soon we get the ruling.