> 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 s

> 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.