The Supreme Court Ruling

I'm a constitutional conservative and this was a very bad decision with no foundation in originalism. The Founders would be appalled. I expected a finding for some immunity, but that it would be very narrowly defined. The old academic "what if..." someone plants a nuclear bomb in a city and only he knows where it is. He is taking the 5th. Can the POTUS authorize torture? Yes, of course. But that is a much more extreme version of the old debate about whether it's OK to run a red light if you are rushing someone to the hospital with life threatening injuries. Any claim of immunity for a crime should be examined on a case-by-case basis and tested with the question; would failing to break the law result in grave harm to the country or substantial loss of life, and this being so obvious and self-evident that the president might be rightly regarded as derelict in their duty if they failed to act? This decision goes way too far.