I have argued that the Supreme Court's actions in this case are perhaps no more than the double cross of the century. Even should that turn out to be true, it does not let Roberts and his gang off the hook. Their decision, as written attempts to put themselves ABOVE the Constitution itself. How is that? Well go back and read the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 3. It's buried at the end of the Section on the composition and organization of the Senate. It is one of the few references in the Constitution concerning impeachment, yet it is crystal clear.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Compare this to Justice Roberts' pompous declaration.
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient."
The essence of Justice Roberts argument is that a court invented doctrine, separation of powers, trumps the clear wording of the Constitution itself. This is an invitation to the judiciary, who are supposed to be enforcing the law, to become rather the actual writers of it. That is not what the Constitution intended.
Separation of Powers is a red herring. It ignores the fact that Congress writes the laws, yet invites executive input to the process. The President is elected by the people, yet Congress can remove him. The executive functions are the President's prerogative, yet Congress can include as much executive direction in a law as they see fit. Our form of government is a balancing of powers, not a separation, and to assume otherwise is to destroy much of the power and wisdom of the original.
Roberts' whining about historical sources is similarly disingenuous. The bedrock to all document interpretation is the insistence that what was not included was not included by choice. The observation that a certain point of view was in wide spread existence when a document was signed, even though it is not included, proves only that it was DELIBERATELY NOT INCLUDED. Bottom line, it is imperative for the people to hold their justices' feet to the fire. They are no more above corruption than any of the rest of us.