Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 12 hours ago
Being allowed to run again, despite being a felon highlights a glaring gap in the ability of US politics to prevent shit like this from happening.
In the UK some right wing manosphere influencer keeps saying how he’s gonna run for Mayor of London (Ant Middleton).
People are gleefully pointing out that his convictions for assaulting a police officer and tax evasion bar him from the role.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 8 hours ago
Excluding people from running for office because of criminal conviction provides an incentive for authoritarians in power to prosecute their political opponents, so it’s a question that definitely has two sides. :/
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 hours ago
Exactly. By the same reasoning, there is no reason to bar felons from voting, or even incarcerated citizens. Prisoners have as much right to government representation as anyone else.
Voting is a basic right in this nation, and it should not be removed for ANY reason. We should be automatically registered to vote at birth, with the registration automatically validating on your 18th birthday. You shouldn’t have to register, declare a party, or prove your identity. If you are an American citizen, you can vote, period.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 5 hours ago
how do you verify someone is a citizen if you don’t make them prove their identity?
I live in an EU country and absolutely do have to prove my identity when I vote. I do not have to “register to vote”, or more precisely, I’m already required to register my residence with the government, which doubles as voter registration (the government knows my DOB and citizenship, so knows whether I meet those criteria). Getting disenfranchised for criminal convictions is a thing here, but only very rarely and AFAIK only when specifically sentenced to it.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 hours ago
Basically, it’s like you, it’s proved by your residence. That way people can’t vote twice. It used to be that you only had to show up with a utility bill in your name, at your address, and that was enough ID, and that worked just fine for decades. They would check you off their list, you’d vote, and go about your day.
Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 8 hours ago
And this is where ensuring total independence of the judiciary comes in.
Its insane to me that the president can pick a Supreme Court judge.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 hours ago
He can’t, he can only nominate them. Then the Senate, a separate branch of government, investigates, and approves them. It doesn’t have to be a rubber stamp, and in the past it often hasn’t been.
Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 1 hour ago
Interesting, but that is still very political. The judges are effectively being selected by people who will do what Trump tells them to
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 7 hours ago
Who else should pick judges except for another branch of government?
Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 1 hour ago
This is how we do it in the UK.
www.judiciary.uk/…/jud-appts/
For Supreme Court justices the selection process is slightly different in that the Minister of Justice convenes the selection panel (constitution is defined in law)
1.the President of the UKSC, who will be the chair of the selection commission; 2.a senior UK judge (who is not a UKSC Justice) nominated by the President of the UKSC; 3.a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England & Wales; 4.a member of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland; and 5.a member of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
Members of the JAC are senior civil servants and by law must remain politically neutral.