Listening to the Supremes this morning, it occurs to me that Justice Jackson is the smartest of the three smartest on...

[crud]

16. Her last statements/question was a huge point

When she said that the criminal acts of a president should have (at the least) equal weight with the concept that a president might be constrained in his official duties. She gets to the heart of the matter, by looking at the broad implications, that it is better to prevent lawlessness than it is to allow it. Seems to me that when you look at the immunity argument that way, it turns it on its head. What will do more harm? Allowing an all powerful president to act unlawful would be much more harmful to the country than an ex-president facing charges.