MSNBC prison analyst Chuck Rosenberg said he is discovering he’s within the “lonely middle” on the subject of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, pushing back on claims the decision pushes the usa into a “constitutional apocalypse.”

Rosenberg joined Willie Geist on Morning Joe on Tuesday to give his take on Monday’s 6-3 opinion, which stated that presidents have absolute immunity for “professional acts” taken while in workplace. So Much has been debated concerning the parameters of such immunity, especially in light of a dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor which recommended a president might kill a political opponent and now not be prosecuted.

On Monday, Rosenberg shut down that particular situation and on Tuesday he found himself defending the ruling against critics once more.

“I believe it’s logical that some acts are immune, the core constitutional duties of any president, put Mr. Trump apart, must be immune from prosecution. Purely personal acts ought not be immune,” he instructed Geist.

Rosenberg, a former U.S. Lawyer, mentioned “legitimate acts” would wish to be determined on a case-by means of-case basis and that concern concerning the ruling is also straight away tied to its implications about Trump, together with that his Jan. 6 Capitol rebellion case may not be shifting ahead ahead of the election.

“I feel now we have to avoid the following construction: ‘I don’t like Mr. Trump. This opinion is good for Mr. Trump subsequently we are on the brink of a constitutional apocalypse,’” he said. “I don’t believe that’s true, however part of Jack Smith’s case is now long past and he’s going to have to fight for the remainder. His street to prosecution is longer and bumpier and extra narrow.”

Watch above via MSNBC.

The post MSNBC Criminal Analyst Defends SCOTUS Immunity Choice, Pushes Back on Concerns: ‘I Assume It’s Logical’ first regarded on Mediaite.