I strongly disagree. For one, the people is not meant to follow their president like a god, trying to interpret their words/accents like a bible. This is what we are seeing in the US ("He did that and it seems idiotic, but in His infinite wisdom He must have a path, we're just not worthy enough to see it yet") and it is preposterous.
The people should trust, among others, the judiciary. I am not personally in a position to decide whether Marine Le Pen is corrupt or not. They are, and it is their job to punish her accordingly.
Of course, FN voters will be pissed and say that it was a political move. But if you do the opposite, i.e. if you do not apply the law to her because she may well win the next election, then those against her will say that the law is a joke because it does not apply to the powerful.
It's okay to be pissed: nobody likes to get a fine because they were speeding. But what's important for the law is to be consistent. When the powerful are obviously above the law, maybe it's time for a good old revolution.
> But the notion that sentences should take no account of their consequences for politics or governance is misguided.
The judiciary is part of the democratic system and as such, is as legitimate as the electoral process: not above, not below, not before, not after.
And indeed, the sentences do have consequences on politics, as they should have consequences.
If voters lost the possibility to elect Ms. Le Pen, it is her doing effectively, and that of her team (also convicted). This is not the judiciary's fault which is simply playing its part in ensuring the rule of law is followed, and protecting other parts of the democratic system.
Taking an example from the USA allowing Trump to be a candidate, despite his misconducts, is a very bad, contrarian example: there, the judiciary _did not_ play its part towards US democracy, and it did have consequences on politics. If the US has made history for the past few years, it will not be in the "why this was a good idea" parts of history books.
Let's not forget either why she (and others, some of whom did not appeal, as they still maintain a sense of personal honor) was convicted, which should definitely bar her from any representative mandate.
The way Supreme Court treated Trump is an example of "how not to do it". And all it achieved is massive levels of lawlessness by the president and circle, because they all know laws don't matter anymore.
Being politician should not mean being above the law.
I strongly disagree. For one, the people is not meant to follow their president like a god, trying to interpret their words/accents like a bible. This is what we are seeing in the US ("He did that and it seems idiotic, but in His infinite wisdom He must have a path, we're just not worthy enough to see it yet") and it is preposterous.
The people should trust, among others, the judiciary. I am not personally in a position to decide whether Marine Le Pen is corrupt or not. They are, and it is their job to punish her accordingly.
Of course, FN voters will be pissed and say that it was a political move. But if you do the opposite, i.e. if you do not apply the law to her because she may well win the next election, then those against her will say that the law is a joke because it does not apply to the powerful.
It's okay to be pissed: nobody likes to get a fine because they were speeding. But what's important for the law is to be consistent. When the powerful are obviously above the law, maybe it's time for a good old revolution.
> But the notion that sentences should take no account of their consequences for politics or governance is misguided.
The judiciary is part of the democratic system and as such, is as legitimate as the electoral process: not above, not below, not before, not after.
And indeed, the sentences do have consequences on politics, as they should have consequences.
If voters lost the possibility to elect Ms. Le Pen, it is her doing effectively, and that of her team (also convicted). This is not the judiciary's fault which is simply playing its part in ensuring the rule of law is followed, and protecting other parts of the democratic system.
Taking an example from the USA allowing Trump to be a candidate, despite his misconducts, is a very bad, contrarian example: there, the judiciary _did not_ play its part towards US democracy, and it did have consequences on politics. If the US has made history for the past few years, it will not be in the "why this was a good idea" parts of history books.
Let's not forget either why she (and others, some of whom did not appeal, as they still maintain a sense of personal honor) was convicted, which should definitely bar her from any representative mandate.
https://archive.ph/ZrTah
The way Supreme Court treated Trump is an example of "how not to do it". And all it achieved is massive levels of lawlessness by the president and circle, because they all know laws don't matter anymore.
Being politician should not mean being above the law.
[flagged]