Normal criminal prosecution is not a good check on a president's authority because the president indirectly supervises the prosecutors. So as a system to ensure "equality in the eyes of the law" the criminal justice system already is not very functional in anything like real time.

The DOJ threat of criminal prosecution only becomes functional when the president becomes a private person, at which point the president no longer has the ability to act in an official capacity anyway.

As for SEAL Team 6, they have a "duty to disobey" unlawful orders[1]-- which every member of the team probably knows off the top of their heads-- and which is a much more effective real-time check on a president's authority.

[1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/what-is-a-mi...

The office of the presidency is certainly not equal under the law to everyone else's professional position. The president is in charge of the military, for one thing, and can act in the interest of national security.

It's not about what the president deserves, but what the people deserve. The founders (after overthrowing one government, forming another, deciding it failed) were tasked with forming a government that can "long endure"... with structuring an office that can both facilitate liberty, but also contend with major enemies foreign (and domestic). The scale of the question is beyond one life or death, but operates on centuries-long timelines. It deals with the equities that face millions of people, not merely the single person holding office.

Why should the President be allowed pardon his friends and allies?

This is quite common. British parliamentary systems offer immunity to members in their official acts.

Why?

Because, and this is purely hypothetical (lol), an opponent could try and convict politicians with spurious charges to get them out of power.

Singapore’s ruling party loves this tactic. Political opponent is charged with defamation, and if fined more than $5,000, they are no longer eligible to run for office.

It’s a commonly used political weapon which is why most democracies offer immunity.

Because the government kills people all the time and destroys their lives and businesses. And because nobody is combing through the criminal law books trying to convict the average person for something.

I mean, the former governor of New York just said the New York prosecution against Trump wouldn’t have been brought against anyone else.

Because average citizens and politicians don't generally attract (unceasing) partisan lawfare that is tantamount to systemic corruption.

When prosecutors campaign on pursuing an individual, when such efforts are multipolar and unending, and when the sum effort looks corrupt to a large portion of the country, then it seems obvious to suggest that outrage at a resultant SC ruling, which would not have otherwise come under consideration, is crying over one's self-inflicted medicine.

I don't think that it is healthy that this was put to the SC.

But it was absolutely inevitable given the various prosecutorial efforts and the norm breaking they represent. Even ignoring the open political corruption, and lies, involving them. Though, these aspects aren't necessary to ignore.

In short, breaking norms to pursue Trump was worth the squeeze for them. They were squeezed. That's it.

Assuming that these aren't crocodile tears over a ruling that will protect others from actual accused crimes of the past, or what might come in the future. That these prosecutions weren't specifically brought to force this result. Which is entirely possible. Certainly, such a benefit will be had.

If I understand this correctly, the core effect of this is to essentially transfer the gateway through which it is possible to prosecute a president from any AG's office to Congress.

I suspect which will serve to further entrench establishment power, of which Biden's camp is a part. Presidents within Congressional graces will be effectively immune, crime or no crime. Presidents outside of them may not be so much.

Whomever lived through 2016-2020 and thinks that Trump will have some kind of Congressional carte blanche either hasn't thought this through or is being deceptive.

Compare the improbability of Trump being able to swerve out of his lane, as far as Congress is concerned, and what Obama was able to legally get away with without stirring Congress.

Now predicated on the precedent of Obama's extrajudicial action, Trump may have been able to carry out extrajudicial acts during his term. But no one who was watching thinks that anything without a precedent would have resulted in anything except another Trump impeachment.