> Why would you want that?

I don't have a strong opinion on it wither way, but the GP's opinion seems totally reasonable to me.

Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they want? If the courts can block candidates before they run, the courts can effectively circumvent checks and balances before the person could be elected.

> Didn't history teach us better?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, help me out. What examples of history show the universal downsides when courts can't disqualify potential candidates?

>Why shouldn't the public be able to elect whoever they want?

Because some types of illegal behaviour of candidates can influence the vote.

This isn't about a court banning MLP because of her views or policy proposals (that would be very bad) but because she has been show to have comitted fraud by abusing EU money to pay for her own party.

Unlike in the US there are strict rules in France about how much politicians can spend on campainging and where the funds can come from that are intended to ensure a level playing field rather than favouring rich candidates.

If courts couldn't ban candidates who don't respect the rules then elections could be "bought" illegaly.

Sure, I'm not attempting to comment specifically on French laws, I don't know French laws nearly well enough.

The comment I relied to was talking about judicial powers in general, and referenced the US rather than France.

My point really isn't specific to any one country though. If an electoral system is meant to be democratic, IMO people should be able to vote for whomever they want. If a candidate can get enough support to win, so be it.

That doesn't preclude us from having laws protecting our right to free and fair elections though. A candidate will absolutely influence the vote, that's the candidate's whole job. There has to be lines drawn where it goes from campaigning to impeding a democratic election, I wasn't arguing against that.

What's ex- about it? Presently still convicted, unless I missed an appeal?

Anyway POTUS is likely the only job a convicted felon can get.

Illinois / NJ governor?

Agreed, my bad.

>> Why would you want that? Didn't history teach us better?

Once you give the courts the power to disqualify candidates you open the door to massive potential for political witch hunts with the express goal of disqualifying the opposition.

Since the executive branch effectively controls the justice department, this is a pretty scary thought.

At least in France, the courts are independent of the executive.

Exactly. Very telling that this appears to need explicit mentioning.

Thanks for this context! Pretty pivotal piece of info.

If a court isn't independent of the executive, something is very seriously wrong (see Poland)

To be clear, in the US the justice department is under the exec branch. The courts themselves are further disconnected.

It is the same in France, the courts are independent in principle, while prosecutors remain under executive control but since 2013 they should not give orders on individual cases.

France has an additional layer of independence compared to the U.S. because of the juge d’instruction (investigating judge), who is also supposed to be independent from the executive, unlike prosecutors.

I say in principle because, judges are appointed in France and not elected. The executive as some control through appointments and career advancements but they are not supposed to use it to sanction or reward the judges.

The effectiveness of these independence mechanisms remains a subject of active debate, as evidenced by the relatively recent changes made to them.

Courts already have the power to fine and jail people.

The problem is not the power. The problem is the politicisation.

I've always been of the opinion that a power shouldn't be granted if it can be abused so easily.

Its unreasonable to say powers should never be abusable, but it isn't hard for a political system to become politicized. That shouldn't be all it takes.

That's the thing about the nature of power -- it's not really power if it can't be easily abused. That's why with great power, comes great responsibility. Responsibility would not be needed if the power couldn't be abused.

At the end of the day if someone has the ability to prevent you from using your power, they are the ones who actually have power. So who watches the watchmen?

The US tries to solve this conundrum by making the checks on power a self-reinforcing circle. "Checks and balances". But at the end of the day, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and all it takes to abuse power once given to you is to convince yourself you have the right.

We can diffuse the power so much that not one person can abuse it. But that has the problem of making action so impossible that the power is never used and nothing gets done. Equally problematic.

That's why it's so important to elect people of high character. Most politicians fail this test.

I think we agree here in general. For me the risk is too high when only one person can abuse power in a meaningful way with little or no check on that authority. I put most executive branch powers (in the US) on that list - the president was meant to largely be a figurehead only executing on what the legislative branch passed and the courts haven't found unconstitutional.

> That's why it's so important to elect people of high character. Most politicians fail this test.

I'd say we have failed to build a system that incentivizes anyone of high character to run for office.

The exchange of power, including consolidation and fragmentation of power, is politics.

Courts give orders, but the coercive powers of fines and incarceration are administrative. At the federal level, and the few states I'm familiar with, these are executive branch powers.

To whatever degree the founders were deeply flawed people, they understood power quite well. They didn't create a democracy as much as they created a polyarchy. Their interest was to make ambitions compete. Ambition to counter ambition.

They were most concerned by consolidated power. Monarchy. For obvious reasons.

"Politicization" is just politics, which is nothing more than how human interact when it comes to gaining power.

Your problem is with human nature - it's not going to change.

We'll never have a system where we find "good humans" who don't have the urge to win by any means necessary. So you need to devise a system that makes that as hard as possible.

Everything has the potential to be a slippery slope. That potential doesn't seem like a good reason to abandon the idea of standards for our leaders.