Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.
So kind of how they said bribery is okay as long as it's not explicitly asked for and given as a "gift" after the fact, the majority holds that presidents can kill their political opponents as long as they "say" it was for national security.
And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.
The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.
Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.
It codifies rules for certain aspects of their role. Not everything.
The Senate allowed legislation that made public lynching a crime to fester in committee without a vote for years. The Supreme Court’s abandonment of any reasonable check on executive power or governmental integrity is absurd. You literally have a justice on the payroll of a billionaire who has paid him millions of dollars who helped redefine bribery to make it a crime impossible to prosecute: