Me reading news summaries: I'll probably disagree with the reasoning more than the holding, this seems reasonable

Me reading the actual case: fuck you fuck your mama fuck your llama fuck your mama's llama's mama drama

They didn't just split the baby. They ate the baby, licked their chops, and accused the rest of us of cannibalism.

I'm still reading the opinion in Trump v United States, but here is the early take of one random non-practicing lawyer on the Internet:

1. POTUS has total immunity when exercising the powers the Constitution explicitly grants the President (like issuing pardons). Okay, but Roberts's explanation comes very close to saying "anything the President does to carry out these powers cannot be a crime," which can't be right. 1/

If your official act as Commander in Chief is to line up our troops against a wall and shoot them all, that can't not be a crime just because POTUS gave the order. Or if POTUS orders troops quartered in civilian homes, that has to still be a 3rd Amendment violation. It's not a Constitutional right if this one guy can pretend it doesn't exist. 2/

2. POTUS has "presumptive immunity" for non-core official acts. Which okay this is a thing for a lot of government officials. It basically means courts have to assume you're immune unless the prosecutor can convince them otherwise. Reasonable people can differ on whether it SHOULD exist, but it DOES.

The problem is that for POTUS, it throws the entire process into chaos because we have no standards for measuring this. 3/

2a. SCOTUS, realizing we have no standards, TAKES IT UPON ITSELF TO INVENT SOME OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE BASED ON HOW THEY WANT TRUMP'S JAN 6 CASE TO END.

This is not how our courts are supposed to work. Those standards should be articulated AT TRIAL, where the judge has the complete record in front of them, has heard witnesses in person, etc. Not by six assholes writing fanfiction. 4/

3. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Seems generally correct but I'm sure Roberts will infuriate me in his explanation somehow. 5/

Re: #1 - ask your racist uncle if he'd be okay with Obama taking all his guns because it's not a 2nd Amendment violation if the President gives the order. 6/

I want to underscore that, in conjunction with Project 2025's plan to reclassify most agency employees as political appointees, this decision is very, VERY bad. It hands a HUGE amount of power to one person. ONE.

I don't care if that person shares your politics or not. ONE person is not meant to have that much power in our system. No one person should have that much power in ANY system. 7/

The fact that Roberts sometimes writes as if Trump is currently President or he has forgotten Trump is not currently President cannot be coincidental. 8/

"Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions."

This is not reasoning. This is bullshit. 9/

"Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."

There it is. SCOTUS fully intends that if POTUS does it, it is not illegal (unless there is absolutely no possible argument the act was "official," whatever that means). 10/

It. Gets. Worse.

Roberts explicitly argues that because criminal prosecution is an Executive Branch function (true), any POTUS attempt to investigate or prosecute anyone is immune from scrutiny as an official core function of the executive.

The President may "go after" anyone they like, and we the people can do nothing to stop it.

This is terrifying. 11/

Re #3 - Roberts infuriates me by continually referring to what the President believes is best for the nation, despite explicitly stating we cannot consider the President's intent when determining whether he has immunity.

Can't discuss intent to find he DOESN'T have immunity, but Roberts will happily discuss it to find he DOES have immunity. 12/

Again: I don't care how much you or I or anyone else approves or does not approve of any particular President, past, present or future. The Presidency itself CANNOT run like this in a functioning democracy. IT CANNOT. THOSE TWO THINGS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE.

Like Justice Sotomayor, I fear for our country. 13/

Roberts: "the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office."

This is so sloppy it disgusts me. This is a literal child's argument. "Well you never punished us for stealing cookies before!" when kids never stole before. 14/

Roberts: "The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.”

This is straight up gaslighting of the crazy bitches who be crazy amirite. (N.b. Amy Coney Barrett did not join this section of the opinion.) "Extreme hypotheticals" like *checks notes* what already happened. 15/