The recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity is dangerous because it grants the president excessive power by effectively placing them above the law.

“I think the democracy in the United States is robust enough that no single act can end it. But it seems to be going in a direction of giving an undue amount of power to the executive that I don't think there's good justification for.”

The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity is necessary because it codifies existing presumptions and prevents future presidents from weaponizing the justice system against their predecessors

“I think this was an easy decision all the majority did was codify explicitly what has long been presumed that presence and joy Brad immunity for official acts that they undertake in the exercise of their constitutional Authority and the duties of their office”

The Supreme Court's ruling establishing absolute presidential immunity lacks historical precedent and threatens democratic accountability.

“they said that the president needed that in order to do unpopular things. Even though as I say nobody had ever asked for it or even presumed that they could get it before, but they did that.”

The Supreme Court ruling is fundamentally un-American because it creates broad immunity that could protect even heinous official acts from any form of criminal accountability.

“This is a really bad ruling. It's horrible. Yeah, if I if I believe the ruling is correct that I don't love America is a pretty harsh position to be in right from the start.”

The Supreme Court ruling creates an ill-defined middle ground for immunity that lacks clear guidance on how to differentiate between core executive actions and those subject to criminal review.

“The Supreme Court didn't give enough guidance on what happens if it falls into this middle ground category. So, basically, the president's acts can fall into one of three categories.”