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.

As you’ve seen, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of birthright citizenship by a 6 — or perhaps 5 1/2 — vote margin. See Kate Riga’s report on the majority decision and Josh Kovensky’s piece on the dissenters’ goal of doing away with birthright citizenship. I repeat my point from yesterday which is that the occasional non-corrupt decision doesn’t make the Court any less corrupt or in need of reform. In this case, in a sane world, the dissents from Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would on their own be sufficient basis for impeachment and removal from office. One might as well believe or pretend to believe that the federal senate is unconstitutional despite its being unambiguously written into the structure of the document itself. The level of abuse of power that is the basis of these dissents can only be seen as criminal in nature and grows from the culture of corruption and impunity that now reigns on the Court.