In dissent, Sotomayor explains:

“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.

I know this will be unpopular, but I'm questioning her reading of the ruling. Ordering Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official act of the President because the purpose is not within Presidential powers. Ditto with organizing a military coup. Taking a bribe is still illegal - just because he can't be prosecuted for giving the pardon, doesn't mean he can't be porosecuted for taking the bribe, but I'd have to look at the elements ( could be a techno reason).

I guess my reading is the reason behind why the Pres did it. If the Pres ordered Wichita, Kansas cut off to quarantine disease with the governor saying no, but the CDC said cut it off now - that's still an official act. An illegal official act - but only a few would want him prosecuted for it. Bit I still like the Jeffersonian view, that most everyone would understand and not prosecute or convict him - even though what he did was illegal. But we do have a narcissistic psychopath headed for the White House - that I understand.

Now, Ill leave it up to Albaby, WTH, and one of my new favorites Pthe, to tell me how I'm reading it incorrectly. :)