First we must understand the broad powers and the broad immunity from prosecution granted to the president by the recent SCOTUS decision. Note that this is a public document, so the three paragraph limit on citations does not apply:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
p.1: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
p. 3: Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. The danger is greater than what led the Court to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability—that the President would be chilled from taking the “bold and unhesitating action” required of an independent Executive
p. 3: Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.
p. 4: At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
p. 4: When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
p. 4: In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
p. 7: Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.
p. 8: the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office
p. 26: Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
In light of the foregoing I hereby propose the following executive order to be issued by the president.
Executive order:
Whereas, the Supreme Court has held that “bold and unhesitating action” is required of an independent Executive,
And whereas, the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court Justices shall serve subject to “good behavior", and does not specify who shall sit in Judgment of said good behavior,
And furthermore, whereas certain Supreme Court justices have not adhered to good behavior, and no one has stepped up to enforce good behavior, it is left to the executive to enforce good behavior as mandated by the Constitution.
I hereby decree that the following justices have failed to adhere to a good behavior standard, by failing to honor the legal principle of stare decisis, by engaging in the non-legal practice of "making stuff up", and that certain justices have failed to recuse themselves when obligated to do so, accepted substantial gifts from parties in interest, and publicly exhibited a partisan bias, all as detailed by the attached appendix. The following justices are hereby dismissed: Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
Nominations for the replacements will be forwarded to the senate in short order, and I look forward to their confirmation.
Constitution Reference, Article III, Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
----
Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior.1 This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior.2 The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers.3 While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.4
[emphases added]