Dave Bowman: There's nothing in this ruling that makes it harder for a sitting POTUS to corruptly prosecute an ex-POTUS. The only charges that are made more difficult are charges relating to the ex-president's acts as president? So what? The ex-POTUS can still be charged for invented post-presidency crimes.

News Analysis: In its immunity decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority largely embraced Donald Trump’s dark view of tit-for-tat partisan prosecutions while liberals cited the prospect of power unchecked by legal accountability.

In Immunity Decision, Clashing Views of the Nature of Politicswww.nytimes.com The Supreme Court’s conservative majority largely embraced Donald Trump’s dark view of tit-for-tat partisan prosecutions while liberals cited the prospect of power unchecked by legal accountability.

"The real concern, Chief Justice Roberts said, was not that immunity would embolden presidents to commit crimes with impunity, but rather that without it, the country’s rival leaders would endlessly be at each others’ throats." This ruling achieves the exact opposite of Roberts's stated goal.

There's nothing in this ruling that makes it harder for a sitting POTUS to corruptly prosecute an ex-POTUS. The only charges that are made more difficult are charges relating to the ex-president's acts as president? So what? The ex-POTUS can still be charged for invented post-presidency crimes.

So, if Biden wants to order the DOJ to plant a stash of heroin at MAL and arrest Trump for being a drug dealer, there's nothing in this ruling that prevents that. The main difference is that before this ruling,Biden could have been prosecuted for issuing such an order and now he has total immunity.

So again, in the interest of preventing a corrupt POTUS from weaponizing the DOJ, Roberts has granted totally immunity to any POTUS who weaponizes the DOJ. Roberts is a moron.

Post