[denton-scratch]

> like, those assume the court will find anything to be an official act, which is nonsensical.

But the Supremes haven't said what they think an official act is; that's a matter for the court of first instance, according to the Supremes.

To me, in the UK, it looks like vandalism. There's no clear law on what constitutes an official presidential act, and until there is, the Pres is beyond the reach of the law.

I don't think these very senior lawyers are fools, I don't think they made a mistake. They've deliberately fucked-up the US legal system (even more than it's already a mess).

[danielmarkbruce]

That's not how it works. If he does X and the court decides X is not an official act, he isn't immune. He doesn't get to say "well it was undefined at the time".

Read the actual ruling. They haven't fucked up anything. They haven't actually said much. Any time you read media coverage of a supreme court decision you've already made a mistake. You have to read the source material.