I believe the argument conservatives have been trying to make that aligns with the court's ruling is mostly about some very specific fear that an incoming or current president could prosecute former presidents and therefore crush dissent.
So basically you have the right scared of former presidents being unjustly targeted in a way that threatens the democratic process, and then you have the left scared that the immunity will itself threaten the democratic process/enable dictators and corruption. Unjust use of prosecution as a political weapon vs just plain corruption being shielded.
It sure seems to me like it would be better if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way, but perhaps that is what will end up happening, not a legal expert.
> if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way
That's largely what's happening here. The President _can_ be prosecuted for things that fall outside of the official role as President. This is not a blanket immunity.
Defining what is considered “official” and more importantly, what is absolutely not official is now at issue and where things get sticky.
Certainly a president carrying out actions that call for prosecution would make the claim that those actions were either official or required to carry out the official duties of the office.
Any hope of justice now depends entirely on being able to draw that line and agree about where it’s drawn.
This is the same loophole applied to qualified immunity in general. On the surface, it appears like there's criteria to consider, but such criteria cannot possibly exist.
It's like saying, "Bribery is only illegal if it is called bribery during the commission of the crime. But also, The State cannot investigate what was discussed during such events without evidence that a crime was committed." They are basically establishing legal paradoxes.
So basically you have the right scared of former presidents being unjustly targeted in a way that threatens the democratic process, and then you have the left scared that the immunity will itself threaten the democratic process/enable dictators and corruption. Unjust use of prosecution as a political weapon vs just plain corruption being shielded.
It sure seems to me like it would be better if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way, but perhaps that is what will end up happening, not a legal expert.