Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.
Literally everything in this article cites the Constitutionality of every presented case that built modern Qualified Immunity. In all cases, a government official is not allowed to violate your actual rights, ie. the ones provided by the Constitution or ones codified into law by Congress.
That is how the system is supposed to work.
I don't see the point you are trying to make, however.
Go read some actual cases and see just how much behavior is excused under the rubric of QI, where a petitioner's only recourse ends up being the offending agency investigating and endorsing the actions of its own employee. I find it hard to believe that you are totally unaware of how this doctrine gets abused or the questions of scope creep, and that was just one example. IF you study law and jurisprudence, it quickly becomes obvious that it is not the process of pure disinterested rationality you seem to imagine.
This is an odd take. QI can only expand as far as the courts allow it - because you can challenge it in court (and it is challenged often).
QI allows government employees to do a lot of things - except violate your real rights (provided by the Constitution and/or laws passed by Congress).
If you do not like how QI has developed over the years - then it will require either A) Congressional Law or B) SCOTUS decision to change it.
None of this has anything to do with what this thread was about.
Just because you are unhappy with some legal tool, doesn't mean SCOTUS is derelict or something. That's just absurd... and demonstrates a lack of understanding of both our judicial and legislative systems.
That is how the system is supposed to work.
I don't see the point you are trying to make, however.