This summary sounds much more tolerable than my initial reading, and I think what constitutes the discrepancy is the absence of the statement
> In a ruling on the last day before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and just over two months after the oral argument, a majority of the court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning. As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments
which I can't find in the linked article, but which is of course in what you've linked to.
In those enumerated things I think the ruling is quite tolerable, but the decision is much broader than that, and this presumptive immunity, etc. becomes quite burdensome.
It's going to be like the state secrets privilege, and that has already allowed people to get away with torture, even people whose identities are well known, and where there is clear, unambiguous evidence that they were involved.
What Roberts says almost makes it sound alright, but it definitely isn't.
> In a ruling on the last day before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and just over two months after the oral argument, a majority of the court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning. As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments
which I can't find in the linked article, but which is of course in what you've linked to.
In those enumerated things I think the ruling is quite tolerable, but the decision is much broader than that, and this presumptive immunity, etc. becomes quite burdensome.
It's going to be like the state secrets privilege, and that has already allowed people to get away with torture, even people whose identities are well known, and where there is clear, unambiguous evidence that they were involved.
What Roberts says almost makes it sound alright, but it definitely isn't.