This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Justice Neil Gorsuch on the U.S. Supreme Court is being credited with hitting the bull's-eye of the dispute over presidential immunity.

He's concerned about how political operatives in the future could weaponize criminal law to target their political opponents.

The questions already have been raised: Could Barack Obama face criminal charges – now – for his decision as president to unleash a drone strike that killed civilians?

The current dispute is over the lawfare attacks by Democrats against President Donald Trump, multiple cases that all are erupting just as the 2024 presidential race is underway.

Observers have pointed out that it appears Democrats fear Trump would beat their candidate, Joe Biden, and so they are trying to bankrupt him, tie him up, and evthe en put him behind bars to protect the Democrat incumbent.

Online, a recording of comments by Gorsuch were posted:

He was sparring with lawyers for Jack Smith, a special prosecutor who has created charges against Trump out of his comments following the 2020 election. Trump has said his comments cannot be prosecuted because he had, as president, immunity.

Gorsuch's concern: "It didn't matter what the president's motives were … That's something courts shouldn't get engaged in… I am concerned about the future uses of criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives."

Observers have pointed out that without a clear immunity standard, Biden, out of office, could be prosecuted criminally for allowing multitudes of illegal aliens into the nation, an act many analysts have confirmed actually is a threat to the national security.

As the case was argued on Thursday, the three Democrat appointees fell into alignment with their party suggesting there's no immunity at all for President Trump.

The six others, including three appointed by Trump, seemed to seek a sort of middle ground, with presidents accessing some immunity, but perhaps not a blanket immunity.

Gorsuch pointedly noted that if Democrats have their way, every outgoing president would "pardon" himself, to avoid being jailed by a successor who is of another ideology.

"What would happen if presidents were under fear that their successors would criminally prosecute them for their acts in office?" he questioned.

“Let’s say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a piece of legislation that’s going through. And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under 1512(c)(2), that might be corruptly impeding an official proceeding. Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word euphemism you want to use for that? Or is that not core and therefore prosecutable?” Gorsuch asked.

"After listening to arguments at the Supreme Court, it’s clear the justices will narrowly hold the president of the United States — any president — is immune from criminal prosecution for official (not personal) acts," Mike Davis, a Trump ally and former clerk to Gorsuch, told the Washington Examiner in a statement.