I’m not saying you’re making it up. I am going to say that you are misunderstanding the ruling. Here’s what the Court said:
Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
[emphasis mine]
What they did not do was provide an exhaustive list of what is “within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” Nor did they decide whether the acts in the prosecution in question fell within that sphere. They kicked it back to the lower court to answer that question. Once the lower court answers it, whichever side that goes against is going to appeal, and that specific question is going to end up back at SCOTUS. Furthermore, they didn’t give much guidance at all for official acts which fall outside the “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” So whether an official act in that category is entitled to immunity is going to also have to be adjudicated, and will also end up back at SCOTUS, on a case by case basis. They absolutely made themselves the final arbiter of whether a President can be prosecuted for certain acts. And if you think they would just let Biden get away with doing something they don’t like, consistent with this ruling, then you are still assuming this Court is acting in good faith, and why the fuck would you think that?
