Unfortunately, unlike most here, you are not a layperson. To take the disbarment case for example where did they hold that the words of the constitution does not mean what it say?
You and I both know SCOTUS did not do that.
Rather it made clear what ought to have been obvious... It determined the entity who had the power to determine whether an officer had committed an insurrection... And that body ( which the constitution did not outright specify), but common sense suggests, is Congress.
And how do we know common sense suggests it should be Congress? Because its states right there in the Constitution who has the power to override such a disqualification, Congress!
But in no where did SCOTUS claim the words of the Constitution doesn't mean what it says
As for the Immunity case, there is no section claiming the Constitution does not mean what it says --- If you have specific quotes from either ruling, feel free to provide.
I know you were being flippant with the original comment. But that's how these claims build on itself, and before you know it there is a cadre of self delusional characters suggesting SCOTUS is just nothing but a stooge for Trump's Future Fuhrer status...
No one here listens to me, perhaps for good reason:) so i implore you to take the mantle of clearing things up for the folks here...