As for the SCOTUS decision, there is nothing radical about it. I don't know whether it's because lors of the main stream media went haywire on their reporting, but I don't see anything radical about it.
What about it did you find scary?
You dont?
Since when does the Supreme court MAKE law???
Because there never was such a immunity law, its a contiguous (aka not unanimous, but arguably even "politically aligned") Supreme court ruling that finds precedent in a previous SC ruling that shielded Nixon in Nixon vs Fitzgerald.
I swear if this was Switzerland the people would have purged everyone involved in such a ridiculous ruling day 1. Political recall FTW.
Laws come from the people. In a direct democracy pretty much directly from the people, in a representative democracy you get a more elaborate process involving the house and the senate who have to go trough a lengthy process to get a law approved. All this process has a purpose.
Granted, just the way you "word" a law is pretty tricky business, especially knowing that a whole language can change pretty radically over a century. That makes it often unclear what people in the past meant with it, and for what purpose they envisioned the law, something afaik the also call "the spirit of the law".
So you have a Supreme court too, they get to look at these issues of interpretation as a body with "superior integrity" and "utter neutrality", they ought to understand the spirit and its past applications of the law in order rule when it comes to matters of interpretation.
What you here have is basically a rogue SC, it has corrupt members, its not politically neutral and it pretty much thinks it does not need the approval of the people (if need be trough their representatives) to reinterpret matters to such an extend that it comes down to making law.
And what does it rule? Well, something that would allow the functional rise of a murderous dictator president. It only needs to be "official", "official can even be kept "top secret", a president can now literally call for someone to get assassinated, kidnapped or jailed and pass it as a "top secret official act". Its not just that their reinterpretation would allow the president to do whatever he wants as long as he keeps it official, but also that he can make sure that it never sees the light of day and that investigation in it would not be even legal.
Picture making this referendum, how much of the people do you think would grant such immunity to a office that already has that much power? Maybe i should make a poll about it to test how many among the british people would vote for such a law in Britain here, i suspect i know how the result will trend.
That is my genuine impression of it, i gave it because you asked. You might have your opinion about it, but thats what it is imho. But i also find it surprising that from my perspective you seem to underestimate this so much. You know 20 years ago i used to often make a joke when gun law debates were on topic for what regards the US. I used to say that knowing Americans had enough private guns to arm pretty much every citizen from granny to baby and provide them with enough ammo to shoot the whole world population ... twice, that one thing they should really really try to avoid is having another civil war. That was a good joke back then because it wasnt something you would forsee happen back then. I dont make that joke anymore. I know to what extend the horrible rulings of the Supreme court even played a fair role in causing the American civil war, a period where it had many bad rulings too. Yeah i think its super scary, the more so given that even our national security kinda is quite connected to the stabillety of the US, or maybe also because just heck, your only the biggest nuclear power in the world..