This thread has degenerated into fury over an absurd hypothetical.
1. Not one member of the court will rule for absolute immunity
2. Everyone agrees the President has extensive sovereign immunity that is almost total in the civil field.
3. Whether this civil immunity extends beyond official functions is often motivated by partisan hackery but not Republican hackery. Bill Clinton spent years arguing that he was immune from civil lawsuits based upon harassment and sexual assault he engaged in before becoming President due to holding the office, and Larry Tribe, who is the leading voice denouncing the court today, helped run his effort.
#2 is not clearly specified in the Constitution, but is rather an inference from common law, and relates to the fact that a President must be able to exercise the duties of office. Therefore the assumption, which it is likely no member of the court will reject, is that the extent of immunity is the degree necessary for an individual to carry out the duties of the President in office. I also expect every member of the court to agree that a degree requires not just protection while an individual is President, but a degree of continued immunity after they leave office so as to prevent second-guessing.
Bill Clinton should not be civilly, much less criminally liable for Waco.
Yes. I have already posted about this, and my post is still valid.
Will he win the case on the merits?
There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.
Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.
A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.
Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.
