Ok, that isn’t a direct answer to me but it is a well thought out answer.

Synopsis
The ruling goes far beyond the case, and seems to imagine an honest President rather than the one the case is about. It ignores long standing precedent of narrow rulings. All the President has to do is say the magic words “national security” and the invisible Presidential Acts wall springs forth as an impenetrable barrier. What if, what if.
------------
Me. It does go beyond the case, the Supremes aren’t limited, though it will cause havoc. Of concern to me is that Presidential communications to aids/advisors can’t be used as evidence. ⬅️ I don’t see why this was done at all. Only recently we found a note by Halderman(?) that indicated Nixon had tt him about contacting N Vietnam about not doing a deal with LBJ. So what gives here? Can anyone explain?

Official Acts get immunity, but Sotomayor’s example of a Seal Team Assassination doesn’t seem to contemplate that assassination of a political rival isn’t part of Presidential Powers and so isn’t a Presidential Act. While I’m unhappy that a President’s communications with aids and advisors is out of bounds on evidence, it isn’t clear if it ever comes in bounds. This is flawed, perhaps I’m not understanding it correctly.
Presidents have used National Security as a shield before this ruling and will continue. It would have been nice if they’d made exceptions at each level, but they didn’t So are we going to develop them piecemeal? What a country! 😊