If Trump were to personally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue: Not immune. (Probably. Maybe.)
If he were to order the army to massacre thousands on Fifth Avenue: Immune. (Very clearly, under the decision.)
But from a constitutional perspective, the latter is the grave danger to guard against.
It is *precisely* crimes that involve the abuse of official powers and are committed under color of office that a constitutional system needs to restrain.
The fact that Trump is now trying to get out of his NY conviction by arguing that he committed those crimes *as president* shows the absurdity.
In principle yes, that's exactly what impeachment is for, but in practice it's a dead letter of a power (and anyway, per the Constitution, it should be able to coexist with criminal prosecution).
it's very cool that none of the supposed remedies for abuse of power can actually be used:
impeachment? dead letter
disqualification? lol no, scotus decision
prosecution? lol no, scotus decision
get more votes? lol no, senate/gerrymandering+scotus
amend the constitution? dead letter
usa! usa!
The question I have is that even in a hypothetical situation of a successful impeachment how does it get enforced under this decision? Could the President claim it is an illegal coup to to head off such an instance? Not a lawyer, but this reeks of bad law.
