With the third of Donald Trump’s indictments coming down last week, editorials on the subject were unavoidable. Many of them were predictable. Many of them were surprising. And then there’s today’s link by literature and philosophy professor Jonathan N. Badger, which is superlative.

 Badger supports Trump’s latest indictment for election interference. Given the prevailing political-media landscape, one would be forgiven for expecting his column to be a single, long tirade against those who disagree. It isn’t. Badger not only shows those with whom he disagrees respect — he also shows their arguments deference. For much of his piece, he addresses points raised in a Wall Street Journal editorial, in which authors David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey assert presidential immunity should apply to Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election. Badger differs, of course (the implications of what they propose clearly troubles him), but he presents their case honestly and accepts that it might be legally acceptable. Their position isn’t a non-starter for him. It’s a starting point, a way for Badger to make his argument for why presidential immunity shouldn’t apply here.

Whether one agrees with Badger or not, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion this is what commentary should be. Badger doesn’t set up a straw man to battle. He picks a strong opposing argument and debates its merits, thus strengthening his own argument. Like we said at the top, this is a superlative column. As we enter uncharted territory, we need far more like it.