One question (of many):

It was the third argument before the Court in three months related to Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his loss of the 2020 Presidential election. This one (Trump v. U.S.) was about his claim that Smith’s prosecution of him for election interference (U.S. v. Trump) must be dismissed because a former President is immune from criminal liability for any official acts he undertook in office. 

In what way is it an “official act” for a president to interfere in an election? Especially to interfere in an election in which he is one of the candidates? What’s “official” about that?

Michael Dreeben, arguing for the government, said, “The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong.” To that point, Justice Elena Kagan asked Sauer whether a President who “ordered the military to stage a coup” would be immune from prosecution. After an uncomfortable beat of silence, he answered, “I think it would depend on the circumstances whether it was an official act.” When Kagan flatly asked, “Is it an official act?” he said that “it could well be,” but that it would depend on the specific facts and context.

So is it just a kind of magic, like the magic that creates “royalty” and all that goes with it?

Why would we want to have a pseudo-royal as president?

The conservative Justices’ perspective is clear: holding accountable the person who is President is far less important than protecting the functioning of the Presidency. Kavanaugh even railed against past independent-counsel investigations, saying “President Reagan’s Administration, President Bush’s Administration, President Clinton’s Administration were really hampered.” (Kavanaugh himself presumably did some of the hampering as part of Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s team that investigated Clinton.) 

Well that’s awkward.