the only naked power grab in recent memory was the Biden vaccine mandate, a gross violation of bodily autonomy, that was officially declared unconstitutional and had no legal basis
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
My workplace was enforcing a vaccine mandate through an unconstitutional authoritarian justification jammed through a federal regulatory agency. The vaccine does not prevent transmission and offers little benefit to someone who's already survived the disease and is otherwise healthy and especially young. And it was the same sort of ultimatum that Harvey Weinstein would use "I'm not forcing you but if you don't have sex with me you don't get the job."
Harvey Weinstein himself sexually assaulted women and lied about it, so no they're not similar at all.
Despite how you feel and in retrospect, we now know that the vaccine was effective[1](regardless of how it was spun) and it would've been more effective if more people took it.
Clearly SCOTUS saw this as overreach so sure, there was a constitutional violation the way things were handled and things are working out okay. However, your OC comes off as ignorant and disingenuous when you look into things a bit.
But if it's outside his constitutional authority, yes, he can be charged. That's what all the pearl-clutchers seem to be ignoring. Yes, Trump can be charged. He doesn't have immunity for election interference (outside the scope of his office). He doesn't have immunity for keeping and mishandling classified documents, and especially for trying to hide them (outside the scope of his role once out of office).
And what do you want? The Supreme Court laid down some general principles. Do you want them to judge how those principles apply to all the cases, when the lower courts haven't judged what the facts are yet? Why do you want that?
Look, I get as impatient as the next person at this slow-motion case, and I worry about November coming. But the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a fact-finding court. Don't expect them to be.
"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
You forced me to not actually read the dissent but to CTRL+F "immune,", because I couldn't believe a person/demigod serving in such an incredibly honorable and powerful position would ever write a rant with the same word 4 times in a row.
Saying that the president has absolute immunity for 'official' acts is insanity and making it so only the supreme court can decide whether or not they're accountable is also clearly saying 'the only thing that matters is our decision'.