> When he (the president) 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.

this is a quote from the dissenting opinion of Judge Sotomayor.

the rest did not find that interpretation of the case true in their opinions.

They didn’t find it false, either. They don’t contest the example.

A. This is the dissent from Sotomayor, panned by pretty much every major legal figure. It is not a ruling, it is not binding, and it is not necessarily accurate. Just like, I don't know, listen to a Supreme Court podcast if you're not going to read the ruling [1].

B. That has nothing to do with the power of the Supreme Court relative to Brazil's. Our Supreme Court doesn't arrest people or order the military around.

[1]: https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/trump-is-ab...

It was not 'panned by pretty much every major legal figure'. And yes I read the whole opinion as well as the dissents.

The immunity is for official duties in his role as president, which doesn't include those examples.

And Sotomayor correctly pointed out that it's trivially easy to assert that any given action was an official duty, thereby gaining the benefit of presumptive immunity pending a court's detailed determination.

Also C) such immunity can still be removed by impeachment.

Sure, unless a whole political party is corrupted.