It is not my intent to be argumentative nor to upset anybody. I was being intense, I think I am just in shock. I had a bad week dealing with an alcoholic, found the Biden/Trump debate depressing, and then the Supreme Court comes out with this ruling which I really did not expect. I figured they were just helping Trump by delaying their decision to the last minute so there was no way Smith could get a case to trial before the election. Well, they went way further than that. 

You are absolutely correct in your description of limited immunity that public officials have, what the Supreme Court did here was they added a carve out for the president, which is basically, if the president claims something is an official act, then all prosecutors, all courts must then begin with the presumption they cannot move forward with a prosecution related to that act. 

If they do, well, the president has the leeway to appeal the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, where they will not decide if something is an official act...they actually are saying they would go by if the president said it was an official act, and if the president says it is, it cannot be prosecuted. 

If the Supreme Court says that, the lower courts have to abide by that. That gives someone like Judge Cannon the leeway to now throw out the classified documents case, because if she let the case continue, Trump lost, he can appeal to the Supreme Court and they will throw out the case. The Supreme Court has made it known that they will not prosecute a president for something the president claims is an official act. They have made the definition of "official act" any act a person makes while president. See the insanity at work in this?

In limited immunity cases against public officials, the public official does not get a say in whether what they did was an official act, that is determined by others. In the case of the POTUS, the Supreme Court has ruled the POTUS has the largest say in if what they did was "official" and any court or prosecutor has to consider their prosecution based on if the president says what they did was an official act. So, what they just told every prosecutor and every lower court is "Do not bring charges and proceed with a case against a president or former president if that president or former president claims what you are charging them for was an official act."

So only in the case of POTUS does the person you would be charging have a say in whether what they did was criminal. Knowing this, what president is going to come out and say "Yes, what I did was criminal!"

Certainly not Donald Trump. 

The bar, according to Trump's attorneys, and now the Supreme Court, is if the president does something heinous or criminal, the only way for a prosecution to happen is the Congress must impeach the president, and the Senate must convict him. Only then, once he is out of office could you prosecute him because that is the bar you must get over to claim what he did was not an official act. 

The courts now are not the ones to supposedly decide what an official presidential act is, it is up to the House and Senate to decide that and impeach for it. If they do that, then the courts can prosecute because the House and Senate agreed whatever the president did was outside of his official duties. 

So, I totally agree with you, a president having their political opponent executed WOULD NOT BE part of their official duties. Sending your mob to the capitol to break in and physically threaten Congress to violate the Constitution and overturn an election so that you may remain in power is NOT and official act. 

Stealing classified documents and then lying about having them so you can keep them, not an official act. Threatening election officials in Georgia and demanding they find you over 11,000 votes so you win the election, not an official act. 

I mean that is obvious to you or I, because we are sane. However, to the Supreme Court, if a president does something while president, and is not impeached and then convicted by the Senate, then whatever they did is considered official and they have total immunity for it. 

I gave extreme examples of raping a woman or a child, and the appeals court judge gave an extreme example of having Seal Team 6 kill your political opponent...yes, these examples are INSANE...problem is, Trump's lawyers argued he would have immunity, any president has total immunity, UNLESS they are impeached and convicted by the House and Senate prior to them leaving office. 

By all accounts, the Supreme Court has agreed with Trump's lawyers. 

Watch what happens now with Jack Smith's cases because this will be the first signal that essentially, you can't charge someone that was president with a crime no matter how much evidence you have and how clear it is that they committed the crime.