> like, those assume the court will find anything to be an official act, which is nonsensical.

But the Supremes haven't said what they think an official act is; that's a matter for the court of first instance, according to the Supremes.

To me, in the UK, it looks like vandalism. There's no clear law on what constitutes an official presidential act, and until there is, the Pres is beyond the reach of the law.

I don't think these very senior lawyers are fools, I don't think they made a mistake. They've deliberately fucked-up the US legal system (even more than it's already a mess).