Subject: Re: Twenty Weeks to Topple a Republic
All this Supreme Court did was needlessly sit on this for months and then delay any meaningful resolution months more by sending it back to the lower court for further determination until it winds up before the high court again next year.

Again, I think this reflects a distorted view of how the SCOTUS operates. Cases always take months to go through the process - with very few exceptions that always involve a hard deadline (like election cases or capital punishment appeals). This was fast for SCOTUS review.

Also, with respect to this court, please 1.) Share with me where in the Constitution the justices find "Presidential" immunity (as you note, the Constitution addresses speech and debate clause immunity, so it's not like they weren't aware of the concept); and 2.) Define for me what this court means by presumption of immunity.

Presidential criminal immunity is right next to presidential civil immunity, which has been the law of the land for half a century now:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...

It's grounded on separation of powers. Each of the three branches of government has a sphere of authority that is not subject to the encroachment, regulation, or control of either of the others. For an explanation, see:

Finally, with respect to civil liability, the Court has held that the President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the "outer perimeter "of his official duties.20 The Court's close decision was premised on the President's "unique position in the constitutional scheme," that is, it was derived from the Court's inquiry of "a kind of 'public policy' analysis" of the "policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President's office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers."21 Although the Constitution expressly afforded Members of Congress immunity in matters arising from "speech or debate," and although it was silent with respect to presidential immunity, the Court nonetheless considered such immunity a "functionally mandated incident of the President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history."22 Although the Court relied in part upon its previous practice of finding immunity for officers, such as judges, as to whom the Constitution is silent, although a long common-law history exists, and in part upon historical evidence, which it admitted was fragmentary and ambiguous,23 the Court's principal focus was upon the fact that the President was distinguishable from all other executive officials. He is charged with a long list of "supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity,"24 and diversion of his energies by concerns with private lawsuits would "raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government."25 Moreover, the presidential privilege is rooted in the separation-of-powers doctrine, counseling courts to tread carefully before intruding. Some interests are important enough to require judicial action; "merely private suit[s] for damages based on a President's official acts" do not serve this "broad public interest" necessitating the courts to act.26 Finally, qualified immunity would not adequately protect the President, because judicial inquiry into a functional analysis of his actions would bring with it the evil immunity was to prevent; absolute immunity was required.27

https://constitution.findlaw.c...

As for the presumption of immunity, it means what it says. When there is a dispute about whether Congressional regulation of the President's conduct poses "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch" (which is the standard in Fitzgerald), the burden starts with the prosecutors to prove that it doesn't, rather than on the President to prove that it does. It's a presumption. So if the President is doing something that's part of the job of President, and Congress passes a law that makes doing that thing a crime, the inquiry starts with a presumption that Congress' regulation of a part of the President's job is intruding on the separation of powers, but not a conclusive finding.