3 ms·

You should work on your reading comprehension. I will quote myself: > - The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which wa

You should work on your reading comprehension. I will quote myself: > - The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which was created in 1969, says that the Supreme Court can open inquiries for crimes committed “within its premises”. This was superseded by the 1988 constitution, which transfers the investigatory function to the judiciary police and the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público). Still, even if you ignore that and go by what the internal regiment says, clearly the facts under investigation by Inquiry 4874 have not happened within the premises of the Supreme Court. To justify that, its justices have extended de definition of what consists the premises the Supreme Court to be the whole Brazilian territory, with the argument that crimes committed on the internet have a “diffuse character”. Does “the headquarters or branch of the Court” include X?

vitorgrs 3y ago
"the headquarters or branch of the Court" happens when someone attacks the Supreme Court, especially as what happened in January 8 when they destroyed the place trying on a coup attempt.
- andrenth 3y ago
  The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it. Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censored in the headquarters of the Supreme Court? Are people who criticize the actions of an out of control judge within the premises of the Supreme Court? Has Elon Musk ever been in the Brazilian Supreme Court? The Brazilian Supreme Court maintains that the whole internet is within their premises. Be honest, do you think this is reasonable?
  - vitorgrs 3y ago
    The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as a attack to the court. That the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
    - andrenth 3y ago
      > The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court. What the heck is a “virtual attack”? Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service. Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law. In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.
      - vitorgrs 3y ago
        It's the Supreme Court that gives interpretation to Constitution, you that right?
        andrenth 3y ago
        Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.

vitorgrs 3y ago

"the headquarters or branch of the Court" happens when someone attacks the Supreme Court, especially as what happened in January 8 when they destroyed the place trying on a coup attempt.

andrenth 3y ago
The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it. Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censored in the headquarters of the Supreme Court? Are people who criticize the actions of an out of control judge within the premises of the Supreme Court? Has Elon Musk ever been in the Brazilian Supreme Court? The Brazilian Supreme Court maintains that the whole internet is within their premises. Be honest, do you think this is reasonable?
- vitorgrs 3y ago
  The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as a attack to the court. That the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
  - andrenth 3y ago
    > The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court. What the heck is a “virtual attack”? Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service. Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law. In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.
    - vitorgrs 3y ago
      It's the Supreme Court that gives interpretation to Constitution, you that right?
      - andrenth 3y ago
        Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.