There’s nothing unusual about the use of the shadow docket. It’s being used in response to district court orders that are being issued without trial and often with very short or no opinions. Why should the Supreme Court spend a year on the full rigmarole for some preliminary injunction a district court fired off after a week after no discovery, no trial, and minimal briefing?

> There's also a giant bloody spectrum between 'policy that had a bad outcome for someone (hint: That's every policy)

Yeah, that’s exactly why there’s presidential immunity for official acts! Because otherwise you could easily shoehorn one of those bad outcomes into the letter of some broadly written criminal law.

In Texas, there’s a deadly conduct crime: “A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.”

You think some Texas prosecutor couldn’t get a border county Texas jury to squint at that text and convict Biden under it for throwing open the border to illegal aliens? All the Supreme Court decided was that some things the President does can’t be prosecuted under the criminal laws like he’s an ordinary citizen. That’s obviously true, which is the same reason Congress has immunity for official acts and judges have immunity for official acts.

> By failing to give any qualification of what the fuck an official act is, they've given him blanket immunity.

No, it’s exactly the opposite. All they decided was that official acts immunity exists. You can’t prosecute Obama for involuntary manslaughter because some executive action he took got someone killed. They then remanded to the district court to decide what counted as official acts and what didn’t count. That didn’t give Trump “blanket immunity”—it left it to the district court to decide what was covered by the immunity and what wasn’t.