[ealexhudson]

The Judges impose the punishment set out in the law; they don't make this stuff up.

The alternative is Judges letting people off just because they're politicians. That seems like an extremely poor precedent to set, those in political life should be held to higher standards.

[ChocolateGod]

I didn't say letting someone of, a crime has been committed and the person should be punished. But forbidding someone from running from office? I don't think that should be the power of the judiciary. That should be the power and responsibility of the electorate (to not vote for them).

[nchagnet]

You do understand that this is explicitly mandated by the law and only in special cases can this be lifted (and here the judge mentioned the lack of remorse or admission from the defendant was a deciding factor for this)? Here is a reference for that: https://www.vie-publique.fr/questions-reponses/297965-inelig...

[coffeebeqn]

And why are your feelings relevant to the French legal system?

[z7]

Why are you hallucinating feelings? Also, appeal to authority. ("Why are your feelings relevant to the wizarding laws of Hogwarts?")

[ahtihn]

There are all kinds of eligibility rules, you think they shouldn't exist?

By your logic, Trump should be allowed to run for a 3rd term right?

[rufus_foreman]

>> Trump should be allowed to run for a 3rd term right?

From the 25th Amendment:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Trump might not be able to "be elected to the office of the President" again, but he could run as a temporary Vice President and then the President could resign, allowing Trump to serve another term, for example.

Of course the 12th Amendment says, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", but the 25th Amendment doesn't say a two-term President is ineligible to the office of President, it says he can't "be elected to the office of President".

The Supreme Court recently decided that a law prohibiting false statements did not prohibit misleading statements. If the legislators had wanted to prohibit misleading statements, they would have prohibited false and misleading statements, not just false ones. Words matter to them.

And there are many other possibilities for creative types.

As far as the French eligibility rules go, would you be comfortable with a system where anyone who Trump's DOJ can get a conviction on is ineligible to run for office, with no right of appeal on that holding? That would be a really terrible incentive.

[phaylon]

Not only Trump. Without the rules, Musk or Putin could run as well, the latter even work-from-home style. Also, if justice being blind is so bad before an election, why not after? Figuring out who won shouldn't involve any courts either. The public will just need to figure out who really won for themselves!

(/s just in case)