People really are not cognizing just how bad this is, once you get past the headlines.
Assertion of some narrow immunity that might have somewhat helped Donald Trump in his current legal travails would be one thing.
This is a profound short-circuit of any form of executive accountability. I am simply terrified, at a very personal level.
screenshotted quote from #QuinHillyer https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3066424/supreme-court-grants-trump-a-malignant-degree-of-immunity/
Text: Barrett, in the middle, wrote the single most concisely cogent line of all: “Properly conceived, the president’s constitutional protection for prosecution is narrow.” And in the part of her opinion that dissents from the main holding, she absolutely blasted Roberts’s truly bizarre, entirely untextual conclusion that even if a president is being tried for conduct outside the very “outer” bounds of presidential authority, prosecutors can’t discuss conduct for which he is immune as part of the evidence in their case. If the president is being charged with bribery, for example, then, of course, the jury should be told what “official act” it was for which the bribe was paid. “To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo,” she wrote, “the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo.” (ltalics are Barrett’s.) Under Roberts’s astonishingly grandiose assertion of presidential immunity, a jury would be denied that basic information.