^Yeah, but the problem you are going to have: Once Amy Barrett gets confirmed, Trump will have his court stacked. If/when convicted, he'll just
eventually appeal to his Supreme Court and will go off Scott Free....sucks doesn't it??
Yes, he and Barr have been working on putting holes in the foundations of our democracy, brick by brick.
One thing that gives me hope is Supreme Court rules on issues of law, e.g. interpretation of constitution, whether laws are constitutional, etc. So, Supreme Court cannot say the trier of fact below determined facts incorrectly, but they can say that new law of the land is that ex-president cannot be prosecuted. However, if they do something like that, they will be setting precedence for the future. So, they will have to be careful to say the equivalent of something like president is above the law.
I feel some hope with the Supreme Court Justices, even if nominated by Republicans, to protect our democracy because they will be somewhat bound by past precedence and will have to be cognizant of setting precedence for the future.
If the supreme court gets obviously partisan (which i doubt) than voters will be ok with Biden stacking supreme court.
But regardless Democrats have the green light to do whatever their numbers allow. Trump/Republicans have said historical precedents no longer matter.
Just to clarify, I think we might have mixed two types of precedence (1) What presidents and the majority party in the senate/congress follow, etc., and (2) Written case law, i.e. all levels of courts needing to be consistent with earlier
written decisions, and when deviating, having to provide
written reasoning, which will form written precedence for future cases.
While Trump/Republicans may choose to ignore #1, #2 is much stronger and forms one of the most established principles in all federal and state courts. Also, because it has to be written, it becomes subject to scrutiny from a lot of eyes. So, courts have to go to extreme lengths to make sure their written decisions are logically solid to withstand scrutiny from thousands of lawyers who can see through inaccurate statements and conclusions that are not entirely logical (unlike general public), now and in the future. Having inaccurate statements or illogical conclusions, e.g. the kinds of things that Trump, Barr and Republicans do, won't go by easily in courts'
written decisions.