SCOTUS getting to the root of the matter

In The president Trump criminal immunity case, the justices, even the leftist justices, are asking the real questions, not the questions being asked in the lawfare cases against Trump. Even far left judge Ketanji Jackson Brown, asking a left-leaning question, is addressing a legitimate concern, even if it doesn't apply in the Trump case.

Of course the conservative justices are asking the better questions but the two questions are flip sides of the same coin; "Can the president do whatever he wants with total immunity?" vs. "Can a political candidate be prosecuted for political reasons, by his opponents, with total immunity for the false prosecutors?"

Really they are the same question to some degree because it's what we are seeing the Let's Go Brandon administration trying to do to Trump; prosecute an opponent as president, with total immunity and no consequences.

The answer to the question should not be an easy simple one for political expediency.  Suggesting the president can do anything he wants with total immunity (murder?) is dangerous. Suggesting that a president or former president or a presidential candidate can be prosecuted by anyone for any reason, real or fictitious, is equally dangerous.  There must be some balance in the answer that supersedes the  immediate political interests of the two political parties.  That's not something to be solved with expedience.  It requires a sound ruling from SCOTUS and a subsequent reasonable legislative discussion and eventual law based on that ruling.

That is not to Trump's immediate benefit, but it is to the country's benefit.  What as Trump supporters we can hope for is something that lays waste to the lawfare for the time being while a longer, broader and more thoughtful approach takes place after the 2024 election.