I wanted to direct your attention to this podcast episode from Slate. It’s actually the first episode of a series Slate is doing on popular constitutionalism. (The page linked above is paywalled. But, I’m told, the ‘By the People’ pod series itself is not. So you should be able to find it on podcast platforms.) It brings together in a engaging and coherent way a number of themes we’ve been discussing over the last couple years about the problem of and the corruption of the U.S. Supreme Court. And it frames the question around a 20-year-old book on popular constitutionalism by Larry Kramer (The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review).

I doubt I’ll get much argument from TPM readers when I say that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v United States, the immunity decision, is among the Court’s most corrupt decisions. But even many of those who recognize the fraudulent and anti-constitutional character of this decision still often agree that it would be a bad thing if ex-presidents were routinely or even frequently brought up on charges for their actions as president. Or, more specifically, they think it would be a bad thing if such charges became part of a partisan game of tit-for-tat in which presidents who had not abused their office were brought up on frivolous charges as a matter of partisan payback.

In this post I’d like to ask you to question that assumption. Of course, I don’t want the justice system abused. I don’t want anyone brought up on bogus or frivolous charges. But this is a risk we should be willing to take, and, more specifically, it should be one we ask anyone who wants the job of president to accept.