I found some time to read the main opinion and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. I approached them both with a genuinely open mind because I figured that the public

I found some time to read the main opinion and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. I approached them both with a genuinely open mind because I figured that the public discourse lacked nuance. Well, the opinion is just as awful as everyone has said. For one thing, it is dishonest. The court spends a lot of time distinguishing the different presidential powers and levels of immunity, as if its holding had limitations. It doesn’t. The practical effect of Trump v. U.S. is that it is all but impossible to prosecute even the most heinous abuses of presidential power. For another thing, the court really couldn’t manage even a semblance of textual or historical support for its decision. Given the court’s recent emphasis on fidelity to those sources, it really is astonishing! (And I say this as someone who is somewhat sympathetic to textualism in principle.) I think it’s really worthwhile to read at least the syllabus and Sotomayor’s dissent.