No. of Recommendations: 4
All I've done so far is read the first few pages with the basic judgement, then search the rest looking for any concurring or dissenting opinions and trying to get the gist of those opinions as well. I've avoided reading or watching anything else so far. I'm writing down some initial thoughts to see how well I'm understanding this decision.
Based on that fairly quick scan, I will say that I'm not thrilled, nor am I angry. There's a fair amount of logic here.
It looks to me like the court is setting up three concentric circles of presidential activity. At the center is a core of constitutionally specified activities where the president will have absolute immunity. Around that center is a ring of official acts, where the president will enjoy a presumption of immunity, but not absolute. Lastly, there are personal acts - including those of a presidential candidate - where there is no immunity.
All of that feels right on a gut level. There is no absolute immunity for everything a president does, nor is there a complete ability to examine every little action of a president. It will be up to the trial courts to determine what actions fit into each of these categories.
That will, by its nature, make any trial a long proceeding. The court will first need to determine which category the alleged acts fit into before proceeding to trial. That's going to invite lots of pre-trial motions and evidentiary hearings, followed by more motions and more hearings before the judge renders a decision. Then the appeals of these pre-trial decisions and the appeal of those appeals to the USSC. All before there can be an actual trial.
In immediate practical terms, I could see this extending Trump's Jan 6 case out for another 2 or 3 years easily, and perhaps much longer.
At the broader level, it still leaves me with questions. One of the auxiliary opinions mentioned something about bribery. What if the president accepts a bribe to perform an official act - say something like signing or vetoing a bill passed by Congress. That act is clearly within the constitutionally outlined acts of a president. Does this mean it's OK for the president to accept bribes for such actions? (The ghost of Spiro Agnew would like to know if he could have gotten away with it.)
--Peter
