I think that you might find that SCOTUS has conflicting interests here. Yes, the conservatives (Thomas, Alito, Goresuch, Kavanaugh, Barret, and mostly Roberts) are generally supportive of Trump. But we’re now seeing Trump flout judicial rulings, and that cuts into SCOTUS’ power; the justices are likely going to want to preserve that in the rulings that they make.

I don’t hold a lot of hope though.

Yeah, now THAT is a problem. The executive branch is in charge of enforcement of laws and court rulings; if Trump’s administration flatly refuses to enforce court orders, then no, nothing is going to happen. At that point, Congress gets to make a choice as to whether or not they wish to exercise their authority to impeach and remove a president. If Congress fails to act, then it’s time for the people to exercise their second amendment rights, or hope that there will actually be elections again. But such a hope seems vain, if Trump’s administration refuses to follow court rulings, wouldn’t you say?

Other than courts?

The president doesn’t get to determine what’s an official act and what isn’t, any more than Michael Scott saying, “I declare bankruptcy!” makes it so.

That’s… Not how that decision was worded. Although that was the conclusion that was drawn by certain pundits. The president has absolute immunity for official acts in areas that Congress has no authority over, e.g., commanding the military, issuing pardons, etc. So if the President committed a crime in an area that Congress has direct control over–such as criminal actions related to trying to shut down the Dept. of Education–he would explicitly not have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Vance is, strictly speaking, correct. The key word there is legitimate. The problem is that he’s trying to confuse the issue; he’s implying that everything Trump is doing is a legitimate exercise of executive power, when it’s very clear from law and precedent that the power being exercised is supposed to be held by Congress.