4 ms·

>> 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

>> 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.

jmague 2y ago
At least in France, the courts are independent of the executive.
- noitpmeder 2y ago
  Thanks for this context! Pretty pivotal piece of info.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    If a court isn't independent of the executive, something is very seriously wrong (see Poland)
    - noitpmeder 2y ago
      To be clear, in the US the justice department is under the exec branch. The courts themselves are further disconnected.
      - guizmo 2y ago
        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.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- beernet 2y ago
  Exactly. Very telling that this appears to need explicit mentioning.
root_axis 2y ago
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.
dave4420 2y ago
Courts already have the power to fine and jail people. The problem is not the power. The problem is the politicisation.
- refurb 2y ago
  "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.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  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.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    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.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      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.

jmague 2y ago

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

noitpmeder 2y ago
Thanks for this context! Pretty pivotal piece of info.
- pjc50 2y ago
  If a court isn't independent of the executive, something is very seriously wrong (see Poland)
  - noitpmeder 2y ago
    To be clear, in the US the justice department is under the exec branch. The courts themselves are further disconnected.
    - guizmo 2y ago
      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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
beernet 2y ago
Exactly. Very telling that this appears to need explicit mentioning.

root_axis 2y ago

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.

dave4420 2y ago

Courts already have the power to fine and jail people. The problem is not the power. The problem is the politicisation.

refurb 2y ago
"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.
_heimdall 2y ago
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.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  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.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    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.