• LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    658
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Now watch the Republican Party of “Law and Order”nominate a convicted felon to be the next president

    • CasualPenguin@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      6 months ago

      Don’t forget their party of “family values” and “religious morals” candidate who slept with a porn star while his wife was recovering from giving birth to their child

    • modifier@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      You know, on balance though, I think I’m glad that being a convicted felon doesn’t preclude one from being elected president. I’ve gone back and forth on it a lot, but I think it is for the best.

      • proudblond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Can you elaborate? My knee-jerk reaction is to be against it, but I haven’t thought about it a whole lot and I’d be interested to know why you have decided on the opposite.

        • qantravon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          6 months ago

          It means if there was an actual politically motivated prosecution, that wouldn’t stop someone from winning. ie. If Trump had managed to make some fake charge against Biden stick in 2020, if the people still wanted Biden to be president, he could be.

          • tburkhol@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think it’s a powerful statement that - despite all the structural checks & balances and systems of appeal - we consider political charges and kangaroo courts a realistic possibility. It’s not just Alito’s flags - this is a long simmering loss of faith.

            • proudblond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Having been a plaintiff in a civil case, with thankfully only money on the line, it was a real eye opener for me of how little the jurors actually get to see, and how much power a single judge has (read: a LOT). It really made me reflect on how absolutely awful and terrifying it must be to have your freedom on the line, and to witness something like I did that felt horrifyingly unfair, and know you could go to jail for it. And I know it happens, a lot, and disproportionately to black and brown folk no less.

              • tburkhol@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                I wonder if that is part of it. As the country has gotten less white, we hear (or maybe care) more about bias-induced injustice, and it’s harder for the declining majority to be complacent when “blame the Black guy” gets a court to give you what you want. Local, elected judges have always been a partisan nightmare, but I feel like it’s really the last 10 years, since they eliminated the filibuster for federal judges, and especially since 2017 for SCOTUS, that national courts have lost credibility.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Let us know how you get from “politically motivated prosecution” to 12 jurors (some of which are Trump supporters) finding guilt. Convicted felons by jury trial should not be public servants and most state Constitutions clearly state that (Florida for example).

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            if there was an actual politically motivated prosecution

            Which is, of course, the unsubstantiated claim that Trump has been making.

            Despite this entire trial not being under the jurisdiction or control of his political rival.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          In this case it seems easy to be against it because a widely unpopular candidate is the one being prosecuted.

          However, allowing felons to run for office precludes the ability for the government to silence political dissidents by making up laws/falsifying evidence that they can be imprisoned for.

          The risk of a Trump presidency is still on the table, but the US can avoid situations like what happened to Navalny in Russia as well.

          In the 1920 election, Eugene Debs campaigned as the socialist nominee for president from prison, having been imprisoned for advocating draft dodging. That is the sort of candidate I would still support, even from behind bars.

        • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Just because you’re a felon doesn’t mean you’re not a citizen and part of the country. As such, you should be able to partake in democracy in all possible ways as well.

          I really dislike this punitive mindset of completely ruining someone’s life for being convicted of a crime. People make mistakes, but we don’t want to exclude them from society, we want to reform them and bring them back in. So yeah, I think, even excluding all this political bs, that no person should have their right to vote or run taken from them.

          • proudblond@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Oh yeah, I agree with you. I certainly think felons should have a vote. Hadn’t really occurred to me to include running for office in the same category.