Actually, it is factually correct.
While I agree with your cites, that does not mean that the jurists do not have unqualified immunity.
They do - and that is, unfortunately, a big reason that they act as they do.
What I think should be done would probably get me banned here.
No it is not. Just because they say it is and have brainwashed people into believing it does not make it any more valid than it would a 10 year-old scrawling Keep Out on the garden-shed and claiming that it legally protected him.
That is to say, either the Constitutions are the supreme laws of the land, and therefore these immunities are inferior and subject to them, or they are not, in which case those sitting as judges cannot be legitimate judges because that Constitution that was rejected is what creates and sustains the position. That is all laws passed persuant to a Constitution that is nonoperative are themselves inoperative and therefore cannot afford any protection to anyone.
What I think should be done would probably get me banned here.
LOL -- Same here.