The justice then added, however, that Ford’s decision is now “looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, I think, by most people.” Kavanaugh, kicking around the idea that presidents might need to be shielded, imagined whether Ford might’ve been concerned about facing an obstruction investigation for having interfered with prosecutors’ case against Nixon.

In context, the justice’s point seemed to be that Ford did something courageous, and the Republican has been vindicated by history, but the then-president might not have taken this commendable step if he were concerned about possibly being held criminally liable — all of which, Kavanaugh suggested, speaks to the need for some kind of presidential immunity.

But there are a handful of important problems with this.

First, Ford made no claims to presidential immunity and faced no prosecutorial scrutiny in the wake of his Nixon pardon.

Second, Kavanaugh’s claim that “most people” see Ford’s pardon as “one of the better decisions in presidential history” is unsupported by evidence. A Washington Post analysis last week noted that scholars and Americans in general do not necessarily hold Ford’s decision in such a high regard.

And third, I’m curious about whether Kavanaugh has ever actually read Ford’s pardon.....

Link to tweet

From Ford’s pardon:

“As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.”

So let’s take stock. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case in which a corrupt and indicted former president, fearing legal consequences, is claiming absolute immunity. At least some of the justices treated the underlying question as legitimate and unresolved.