[Ajedi32]

This doesn't say the executive is above the law, it says you can't prosecute the president for doing his job, just like you can't prosecute judges for their rulings on the bench or members of congress for their votes on the floor.

[padjo]

I don't really see an equivalence between those very specific and limited acts and vast swathe of things covered by "official acts" of a President.

[Ajedi32]

The equivalence is that in all three cases those are the official duties of the office.

I would agree that the scope of the president's job description has gotten overly broad over the last century as congress has delegated more and more of its powers to the executive branch, but I don't think a prosecutorial Sword of Damocles is a good solution to that problem. Certainly it's not the constitutionally prescribed one anyway, which is what the court's ruling affirmed.

[padjo]

"Don't break the law" seems like a pretty low bar to clear for the most powerful person in the country.

[Ajedi32]

Given the scope and complexity of our legal system that's actually a very high bar to clear for anyone, and especially for the president who often gets involved in particularly complex legal situations where even a panel of experienced judges can't come to unanimous agreement about what's legal and what isn't.