3 ms·
AFAIK, it's usually based on the item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism. But this one decision may be about something else, nobody knows. Those are not de
by marcosdumay 2y ago
AFAIK, it's usually based on the item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism. But this one decision may be about something else, nobody knows.
Those are not details about the transition from the dictatorship. They are expected to be followed by all of the remaining of the text. And yeah, that translation is correct, the actual text doesn't say that at all.
IMO, the entire thing is very bullshitty. There is an entire idea of "legal principles", taken out of context from random places on the Constitution, and the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to. That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed.
(Just to add, even our first "democratically elected" president after the new constitution was picked by a decision like that.)
- matheusmoreira 2y ago> item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism I see it now. Thank you. I don't agree with their interpretation but I see what you're getting at. > the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to I started smelling bullshit too when I noticed this. These judges are not impartial at all. > That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed. How sad... The popular saying here is "doctors think they're gods, judges know it". So things have always worked that way. Realizing this now as an adult is extremely demoralizing and disillusioning.
- marcosdumay 2y agoIf you want to get truly disillusioned, look at how Sarney became president.