The Supreme Court changed the law in order to bail Trump out of a criminal charge. How is that possible? If you have been following this mockery, you know that the district court dismissed Trump's case because there was no law to support his claim of Immunity. The Supreme Court stepped in and said effectively, "Well we are going to change the law, so you are going to have to wait until we figure out what the law should be". Why?
Well contrary to Trump's actions, and the press's characterization, the Supreme Court has no power to just answer any question given it. There must be a dispute, and there must be a request to the court. Here the dispute arises from the original indictment. The state claims Trump is guilty of obstructing justice, and Trump neither agrees nor denies but simply says he is immune from prosecution. He appeals to the Supreme Court for their review of the relevant law.
The Supreme Court knew that they were unwilling to give Trump the law he wanted, which was complete immunity. But at the same time, they knew they wanted to give him the immunity from this particular prosecution that he faced. So they interfered. They interfered because they had no power to just out right grant him immunity. What they had was the power to "interpret" what the Constitution called for in this particular situation. PAY ATTENTION to that word. Courts, including the Supreme Court, are given the very real responsibility of interpreting the law as it applies to the facts. They are NOT given the power to invent the law. That takes legislation. SCOTUS tends to ignore that little distinction.
So they have to come up with a change in the law to justify their intervention, and logically it ought to be in some way involved with the question of immunity, but really, it doesn't matter. The truth of the matter is that the moment the Supreme Court took the case, Trump was off the hook. It didn't matter what the court said, because by the time they got around to saying it, and sending the case back to the district court where it belonged, it will be too late to get a trial resolved before Trump is back in office and can cancel the whole thing.
Mission accomplished!
But they still have to say something to technically close the loop. It doesn't matter that it doesn't matter. It is required by the rules of the game. So here is what they came up with in the name of "interpretation". Henceforth, the President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution if it involves his core activities. That is SCOTUS speak for those responsibilities specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The military and foreign affairs, unless you count, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", in which case you might expand it to include just about anything. But in case it doesn't, immunity is presumed for all other activities of office. Overcoming the presumption requires a show that the charge being brought would not threaten the power and function of the executive branch. Finally, there is no immunity for private acts, BUT you can not examine motives in determining if act is official or private.
Oh, and by the way, immunity, if given, is for life.
And also by the way, the Constitution says NOTHING about immunity for the President under ANY circumstances.
So now we have to change gears a bit and talk not about Trump, but the future. If the Supreme Court makes a pronouncement, it may become precedent. I say MAY because there is a little wrinkle to precedent setting and I have no idea what this court is going to do with their finding the next time it comes up. As I understand it, the rule for setting precedents is that a precedent is only set if it actually decides a real case. Here, the case was dismissed by Trump's newly appointed Attorney General before it ever went to trial. There is no way to say what the lofty words actually mean given there is no case specific facts to hang them on.
So maybe the whole convoluted set of rules set down have NO future weight. Maybe this whole thing had NO purpose other than to make Trump think he was calling the shots.
Either way, this was a sorry day in the history of the Supreme Court. Either they permanently made our future Presidents kings, or they pulled off the double cross of the century. Either way in terms of trust and integrity they have lost it all in my mind.