If the Roberts’ Court is right about the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what the authors of the Constitution had in mind when they proposed that a President could be guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Yes, that is in a non-criminal context wherein criminal penalties aren’t possible. But they clearly meant this to be inclusive of official acts. Indeed, it almost certainly is primarily about official acts. Yes, you can kind of thread a needle to maybe work your way out of this contradiction. But you don’t need much of an acquaintance with the period in which the Constitution was written to know that the people of the time would have found this decision shocking. The mere words of the impeachment clause itself tell you that.

One of the many things we have going for us at TPM is that we have two really talented reporters covering different aspects of the world of the law and the courts and we have an executive editor who is himself a lawyer, which adds an additional layer of sophistication. I’ll leave the details of the Court’s decision to them. But I can speak broadly to the nature of president power. This decision creates two classes of presidential immunity for official acts, one absolute, the second presumptive. This is much closer to total immunity than many seem to understand. It is precisely the President’s official actions, actions taken with official powers, that we’re most concerned about. We’re not worried that the President will steal a toaster. If a President beats their spouse that is an outrage and he or she should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. But that doesn’t threaten the state itself. It is precisely official acts which matter most with a President and where legal accountability is necessary because the Constitution gives Presidents such vast powers and their conferral is personal and will-based in nature.

As with my last post, a few thoughts not organized into a single argument but presented as a list of items.

• On the question of Biden dropping out, I hear people say, “surely there’s another leading Democrat who is up to this challenge?” Or, “how can it be there’s no way to do this?” Or, to me personally, “why can’t you see that this is the obvious thing to do?” The best way I can answer this is to say that my assumption is that switching candidates now is the equivalent of pricing in 10 or 20 debate-night disasters. That doesn’t include how the next person does. I mean the simple act of making the switch. I’m not asking you to believe that’s true for the moment. Maybe you disagree and that’s fine. But if you’re trying to understand my reasoning, that is a significant part of what it’s based on. Needless to say, you need to be certain the current plan is hopeless and that person X is going to really knock it out of the park if you make the switch. Again, I have my own assumptions and theories that get me to this conclusion. I note it here just to give you a sense of why, while I’m not ruling anything out, I’m still very skeptical about a switch.

Our live coverage is underway here.

A few thoughts on last night’s debate and the fallout, presented as a series of items.

• Last night really sucked. Someone said to me that it brought back feelings of déjà vu about election night 2016. You’re sitting there and the thing you were afraid of but didn’t think was actually possible is happening. And you can blink your eyes and it doesn’t stop happening. I had that same feeling. I’ve had various people write in and say, “You don’t get it, Josh,” in response to things I wrote last night or said on the pod — “It was physically uncomfortable for me to watch.” “I was horrified.” “I wanted to throw up.” All I can say to this is, it was really, really unpleasant for me, too. I just don’t talk or write that way. It royally sucked.