Leave aside the self-evident truth that the #Supreme #Court's #immunity ruling was purely for #Trump's benefit. Leave aside the near certainty that it will be applied generously to #Republicans, and stingily if at all to anyone else. Leave aside the breathtaking level of judicial activism required to create a class of immunity with no grounding in precedent or the plain language of the #Constitution.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

This is a terrible idea. In a sane world, breaking the law cannot be an official act, because the #President's chief responsibility in office is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." By saying that a category of official acts which are immune to prosecution *exists*, even hypothetically, the Court has placed any President, current or former, beyond a substantial portion of the law's reach. Any President to whom the (in)Justices in their wisdom deem it to apply, anyhow—but again, that's a side issue.

For anyone who disagrees, here's a challenge: think of one official act, any *possible* action the President as President could take, which requires immunity but is still within the law. One. Take all the time you need.

It's the macro-scale version of cops never writing each other speeding tickets. We should demand a *higher* standard from people we give power to execute the law, or at the very least an equal one. Instead we wink and nod at blatant abuses of that power. This does not strike me as a recipe for long-term national survival.