Romanian far-right MEP Diana Șoșoacă slammed the country’s top court as “politicized” after it removed her from the list of candidates for November’s presidential elections without giving a reason.

7 comments

1. As a Romanian,thank god she is off the lists.

   This lady is an embarrassment to our country. She had to be removed from an EU Parliament meeting because she kept screaming about how the right to abortion is against God’s will and that they’re all going to hell.

   All she does is scream incoherently while constantly having a victim complex and claiming that everyone is against her.

   She’s like a banshee Trump.

2. Is that the dog muzzle lady?

3. >courts did their jobs

   >it happened to be against someone from the far-right

   >calls the courts politicized

   >a classic far-right moment

4. This is what democracy looks like.

5. Democracy at its finest

6. All you need to know about her is that after being banned from the presidential election, she posted “long live the Legion and the Captain, they were murdered by the same jewish power that acted now.”

   The Legionary movement is Romania’s fascist movement during ww2. Ya know, the whole 9 yards, perpetrating the Holocaust and such. She’s been screaming about jewish world conspiracies and the khazar conspiracy and … pretty much every conspiracy you can think of.

   Don’t make the mistake of thinking of her as similar to other far right, trump-like, afd or fidesz party. We have that too, it’s the party ( AUR ) that kicked her out for being too extreme.

   She is straight up, unapologetically, a nazi. There is no way around it.

   As for how she was banned from the election, or why, and who it benefits, and if it was undemocratic or an abuse of power, i won’t get into that, i just want to make clear that this woman is several orders of magnitude more far-right than what most people picture. There is no dog whistle, no beating around the bush, she’s glorifying the romanian equivalent to the Nazi party.

7. Context: The reason was given today. (Apparently it’s normal to first take decision and then also tell the base of said decision)

   From what I understood in Romanian:

   First of all they took the right to decide upon her from the oath the president has to take when taking office, which includes also to swear to always protect and defend the constitution and democracy. They say every candidate already has to stand up to said oath, just because he might win. To my knowledge, the court has never used this kind of maneuver to be able to enforce the respect of the constitution of candidates in the presidential race.

   The court decided that she clearly does not respect the constitution and its values, because she repeatedly and publicly asked for Romania to leave EU and NATO, which somehow the court says are part of the constitutional democratic values. Also by some other opinions she made public.

   I haven’t read the whole reasoning (21 pages), just a bit, especially the start.
   This is what I understand is the reasoning.

   EDIT: Also please don’t delete or ban, because of no country tag or whatever that is.