I disagree because it means every political decision can now be litigated after the fact. This will create a very weak presidency and we are done for as a nation.
But, there are plenty of grounds for dismissing this suit without deciding the immunity issue and the SC is likely to take that path to leave teh matter ambiguous. It might take the standing issue - Jack Smith was not confirmed by the Senate and therefore has no standing to bring a case on behalf of the US government. That is the easy way out without deciding a monumental issue. Or it could decide that the government has failed to state a claim and dismiss it based upon the pleadings as they stand - e.g. there was no insurrection or you cannot deny the President freedom of speech on political issues any more than anyone else. or...
this case is BS and cannot stand, but at the same time blanket immunity is a huuge step and the consequences are unforeseeable. I mean, does the president have immunity from running a teenage prostitution ring for blackmail and intelligence purposes? It's outrageous and he shoudln't.
I don’t see the court granting blanket immunity from prosecution to anyone just because they help a particular position.
We shall see but I done see this happening
This is the nub of one of the issues. It would clearly not be considered an official act as President. But defining the contours of an act other that official would take some work.
Part of the “problem” is Impeachment is a political process. What happens if a President is running a prostitution ring or worse, pulls out a gun and murders someone? Things are pretty partisan and you wonder if Impeachment could succeed given those circumstances and these conditions.
A note that running a prostitution ring or murdering someone are clearly impeachable acts. And let’s be frank - the threshold needed to convict is much less - 2/3 - than in a criminal trial. And there’s no requirement that the standard for guilt be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Now why'd ya have to bring Bill Clinton into it?