It's worth remembering that "presidential immunity", the concept, is completely made up. There is nothing about presidential immunity in the Constitution. Congressional immunity exists, it's in Article I. So the founders knew how to do immunity if they wanted to create legal immunity. But presidential immunity was not a thing for 200 years until it was invented by the Supreme Court in 1982 to protect Richard Nixon when someone he illegally fired sued him. And it was only made up to be immunity from civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecution. So Trump's presidential immunity claims in his criminal cases are pretty frivolous and based on nothing but an attempt to extend an immunity doctrine that was created out of thin air (the very kind of creation that conservative "original intent" jurists claim to hate... except when it comes to creating new immunities for public officials and police officers, and whenever it results in something that conservatives like) and extending it by judicial fiat into a brand new area without any real basis in the law. Or at least in the law before our judicial overlords tell us it is the law now.
Still, I think there is a fair chance that even the current arch-conservative Court will reject Trump's presidential immunity argument. Not because it is frivolous (it is) but because a Democrat is currently in the White House. The joke is the day after the Courts rule that Presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for anything they do while President, Biden orders the murder of Trump. I don't think that will literally happen, but the current arch-conservative majority is going to be aware of the dangers of telling the current sitting president, who they don't like, can do anything he wants without fear of consequences.
So instead I think this is just a delay tactic. The Supreme Court didn't just decide to take the case they declined to expedite it. Oral argument is scheduled for the end of April, two months from now, after first denying the special counsel's request for expedited review in December and then taking weeks to announce whether they would even take the case after Trump submitted his appeal. So a ruling won't come out until the end of June, 6 months after it could have summarily dealt with it (and that's assuming the Court doesn't kick it to the next term, one year from now, which they could, but probably won't, do). By contrast Bush v. Gore was an appeal of a December 8, 2000 ruling of the Florida Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case on December 9, heard arguments on December 11, and issued their ruling on December 12. When the Court wants to expedite something they know how to do it. By not quickly declining to hear the case or expediting the argument and decision, they are deciding to help Trump make sure he is not convicted before he is able to become President and shut the prosecution down. While the Court has not formally ruled on the case yet, that is already a significant decision they have already made.
Maybe Clarence and Ginny will get a shiny new R.V. out of this.
