[Matticus_Rex]

> Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted.

Roberts' opinion covers this, as do many discussions of textualist interpretations -- not being set out in the text specifically doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, for textualist interpretations. Roberts' example is separation of powers. There's no "separation of powers clause," but the concept is pretty clearly set out in the text anyway. They say the same is true for immunity for public acts, and they provide reasoning. I disagree with some of the reasoning, but there are much more tenuous things read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court than this one.

And if the Constitution includes immunity for public acts, so much the worse for the Constitution!

[o11c]

That's not really a coherent stance though, given how many "protect the constitution" laws they keep overturning in the name of "it's not actually written in the constitution".