The President’s job description is to faithfully preserve our laws, so how can committing any crime be an official act? What the #@*% are the conservative Justices thinking?
If the President feels that it’s his job to lock up an ethnic minority in wartime, then the legality of that act can be decided by the Supreme Court during his Presidency, as happened in December 1944. If some cops snuff out the life of a suspect on the sidewalk, then the illegality of that act can be decided by the courts after the officer is fired. What matters is delivering justice quickly, without regard to whether the alleged criminal still has his job or not.
The trial will raise all the relevant facts and laws. Let the defendant appeal about ‘official acts’ after being found guilty.
Why is that not happening? Inviting a defendant to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court—whether every single law is perfectly clear now and forever, whether each law applies to him, which frivolous exceptions must be decided before proceeding to trial, and what theoretical consequences of applying each law to him could possibly be—is absurdity that would make Ionesco blush.
The conservative Justices are violating their oaths to faithfully do their jobs without respect to who the person is.