Donald J. Trump vs. United States, Supreme Court, No. 23-939

I don't dare to put this on my other social media platforms, but I must speak out, if only to vent my concern. Having read the opinion of the court, I am appalled. The court seems to have gone out of its way to define a new paradigm of presidential immunity.  

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, or any sort of lawyer. But this is discouraging to say the least. I tend to support Justice Sotomayor's dissent: the majority decision "invents an atextual, ahistorical and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law... This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority's attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds.... Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force." 

I also concur with David French's opinion piece in The New York Times, which says: "The Supreme Court isn’t a policy-making body; it’s an interpretive body... I disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings for the most basic reason of all — they do not square with the text of the document the justices are supposed to interpret, and that means they’re granting the presidency a degree of autonomy and impunity that’s contrary to the structure and spirit of American government."