So it must be that you disagree with all the dissenters envisioning such "SEAL Team 6" scenarios. IS there no risk at all of that being judges immune if and when such a case makes its way to the current SCOTUS?

That's my read - there is no risk, under the current holding. Which is why IMHO the dissenters merely stated that a "Seal Team 6" scenario was a possibility, rather than taking the time to actually elaborate how that would play out under the majority's reasoning. Because there's no real way to square that scenario with what the majority actually held. There's no plausible argument that the President doing something that's not only outside his actual powers, but prohibited by the Constitution, would be considered an "official act" under the majority's analysis.

The scenarios involved in this thread all involve a lower court judge acting so completely bonkers (like accepting an argument that Trump assassinating a political rival was necessary to prevent secrets being revealed to the Chinese) that they wouldn't need immunity to let the President get off scot free - they'd just use the same craziness to simply dismiss the charges. Yes, the entire system assumes that federal judges are not going to give the President a free pass for murder just because they're from the same party - but that assumption is necessary with or without this immunity ruling, since judges are always free to grant motions to dismiss criminal charges or enter directed verdicts against the prosecution.