Not a fan of the immediate effect on part of the sentence (everything should be contingent on the result of the appeal process).
Making ineligibility sentences immediate is a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.
Take the individual parties of today out of it. You don't want the party in power in the government to have the ability to decide who is allowed to run for office. If you actually want to live in a democracy and not just autocracy with your favored party in power, you want the people to decide who runs with as little government input as possible.
A judge saying someone is not allowed to run for office is objectively, by definition, anti-democratic.
> We're seeing this exact process happen in real time in the US.
Last I checked Rosie O'Donnell is only one stupid enough to imply that the latest presidential election was not completely above board.
In a court of law in the US, a jury decides whether someone is guilty or not guilty in criminal cases.
The information the jury hears in the US in criminal cases, especially high profile ones, is extremely tightly controlled. They're not in the room when lawyers are making evidentiary arguments to include or exclude evidence. I've served on a couple juries and the most high-stakes one carried potentially decades of jail time for the defendant. We were shuffled in and out of that room dozens of times each day for lawyers to make arguments about what we could or could not hear. Several of our questions during deliberation were answered with a section of the transcript and nothing more.
Juries are wrong all the time.
The MAGA cult was complaining about it until it became obvious they did not lose the elections.
Make no mistake: this is completely standard and of LePen’s own doing.
Anyone telling you otherwise is either at best completely ignorant of French jurisprudence and the factual details of the case, or, at worse, intentionally deceiving you.
The prison sentence being suspended until appeals are exhausted also seems sane to me for a nonviolent crime.
So, overall, it seems reasonable. The ban on a run isn’t infringing on fundamental rights in a way that is permanent and there’s no deprivation of liberty until appeals are exhausted.