You appear to be conflating a principle with its parameters. It's a category error. It's like being an early 2000s Java programmer and claiming that automatic m

You appear to be conflating a principle with its parameters. It's a category error. It's like being an early 2000s Java programmer and claiming that automatic memory management means freezing program execution at random intervals. Under Harlow there is a presumption in favor of the official such that these suits are often dismissed at the 12(b)(6) stage. However, that is incidental. It is specific to Harlow. As such, while perhaps a valid criticism of the Harlow QI regime, it is not a valid criticism of QI; just as the valid criticism of coarse stop-the-world mark-and-sweep is nevertheless not a valid criticism of automatic memory management. It's important to realize that the underlying principle of qualified immunity - that a person is distinct from their office - is centuries old and a fundamental bedrock of American democracy. It's why Marbury sought a writ of mandamus in the first place, rather than wringing money out of Madison. The qualified immunity regime we have now is not historically representative.