That's not what they say, you cut off their actual response:

> The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. ... Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine.

Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.

I wouldn't call that a failure mode.

The US has a long history of relying purely on executive latitude and good faith to get things done. We now have a bad faith actor who wants back in the Oval Office with far fewer restrictions on his power. A lawsuit or criminal charge would absolutely be a good remedy in that situation.

Furthermore, it's the implementation of a system. What the justices of the majority said today is "there is no system". When there is no system to deal with problems, then humans make them up ad-hoc, which usually results in violence, if history is any indicator - and it is.

That's a lot of words to not contest that political assassinations are covered under this framework of immunity.

> Their argument isn't that it's not likely, it's that there's another failure mode that is even more likely.

I know its hard to imagine, but I strongly feel there is some amount of presidential immunity that mitigates what they are worried about without also enabling political assassination.

Deleted

You're misreading the text. It's not saying "if presidents assassinated their rivals they'd cannibalize themselves", it's saying "if executive branches got in the habit of prosecuting past presidents for official acts we'd be in a load of trouble, and that's a more likely scenario than assassinations."

I see what you're saying thanks. Deleted to avoid causing confusion.

Reasoning that more-or-less overlooks the entire history of the United States' treatment of bad political actors, from the Nixon pardon through the Lincoln pardons of the Confederates all the way to the multiple times Aaron Burr escaped justice for his prior service to the country.

It does make one question why this SCOTUS seems to think the future will break with precedent. Almost as if they're laying the groundwork for some significant changes to past decorum...