Claiming to have the same understanding as the majority of justices seems safe, though, if that's how you decide what opinions to hold.

Did the majority opinions refute the dissent?

All I saw was that they were dismissed as “extreme hypotheticals”. All of that despite the publication of Project 2025 openly calling for the next conservative president to bend and break bureaucracy to carry out their desires.

We’re firmly in the Fuck Around stage of what exactly this ruling will and will not allow, and one way or another, we’re going to Find Out within the next 3-6 months. I know which candidate I hope to Find Out from.

In the majority opinion, this part would disagree with Sotomayor's example: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

The language isn't as electrifying as Sotomayor's example, but you can still imagine unofficial acts that would not warrant immunity.

High level of snark given that this is the most definitive part of the ~~actual decision~~ syllabus you could find to possibly counter what Sotomayor wrote. Guess you didn't read it first.

(Advanced trick: you are reading the syllabus. The actual decision is below.)

I read it this morning. Which part would you have quoted? I picked that part because it seemed like the clearest summary.

I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than the justices who wrote it.