4 ms·

> only that had been enough to fix things. Exactly! You, just like the people that was there and now are in jail, wanted that to "fix things", or calling it f

> only that had been enough to fix things. Exactly! You, just like the people that was there and now are in jail, wanted that to "fix things", or calling it for the right name, a coup. It didn't work well.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
I don't blame them at all. Who are you supposed to turn to when the supreme court starts censoring you? There's no one else above them.
- owebmaster 1y ago
  They even literally asked for Extra-Terrestrial help. Funny times. Awaiting 4 years for the next election is not that painful.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    I think it's sad, not funny. Supreme court judges are not elected. They don't even have to pass tests.
    - owebmaster 1y ago
      They gotta follow the constitution. And judge criminals. Exactly that is what they are doing. For that to be happening at the same time as the US devolve into a dictatorship is quite didactic
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > They gotta follow the constitution. No, they don't. They can do whatever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. Whatever they write on a paper becomes law, simply because police enforces it. The fact they weren't and aren't following the constitution was a major cause of January 8th. Censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, especially that of a political nature. And political censorship is exactly what they engaged in. They just happened to use euphemisms like "fake news". I remember one case where they censordd a documentary before it was even published. A priori censorship, something not seen in these lands since the military dictatorship. > And judge criminals. Supreme court's purpose is to judge politicians with immunity and assorted privilges. Not common citizens.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        I'm glad the people that think like you are a tiny minority that is being persecuted and answering for the crimes. The supreme court never worked better.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. I'm trying to warn you that one day it will be your turn to be persecuted, as it often happens. I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        > I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. pretty much the opposite: when the same STF changed laws to put Lula in jail, I did not supported people that wanted to overthrow the rule of law. You do. Now. But at the time you were in favor of the same supreme court change the law in favor of your ideology, which removed Lula from the election that he was leading. > I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Do you think you have it hard? That this is some kind of torture? The same people that worship coronel Ustra? > Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it. You should not be imprisoned for your thoughts. But corrupt politicians and criminals should not be protected by unrestricted free speech.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        I only started keeping up with politics after Bolsonaro became president. So I'm afraid I don't remember which abuses, if any, were committed by courts at the time of Lula's imprisonment. I don't doubt you. Feel free to elaborate on the matter if you'd like, in good faith. I don't support "judicial activism" at all. Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written to each individual case, no more and no less. Any deviation from that is a power grab. In other words: judges must not legislate, that is the job of our elected representatives. Any attempt from a judge to legislate is a small coup against the people. Actual lawyers have told me: "instead of applying the law, the surpreme court decided to legislate". This is normal in Brazil and it shouldn't be.
    - cassianoleal 1y ago
      > They don't even have to pass tests. That's not true. At the very least, they need to be Law Bachelors. Furthermore, after being nominated by the President they need to get approval from the Senate.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that. Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court. Just yet another example of how backwards this country is.
        cassianoleal 1y ago
        > By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that. Those are essentially admission tests. They're not meant to test the knowledge or ability of the candidates, but rather as a way to filter out the excess because there's higher demand than offer of those jobs. The Supreme Court justices don't have to do that because they are selected by the President instead. > Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. Some of the supreme court justices might have not passed admission tests for jobs they were not interested in but that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law. > Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court. No doubt it's possible but I find some of the foundational premises of your chain of causation to be misguided at best. If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro who can't follow simple logic and has repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance of how the Brazilian Civil Law system differs from his FBI training on Common Law concepts and strategies? One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled because it was so full of vices that Cracolândia junkies seem productive and well adjusted in comparison. Furthermore, you have complained in other comments that the justices are not elected. Leaving out any arguments around why that's the case, and why this is a desired feature of the system, how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? There are so many goalposts in your messages that it's very difficult to understand what you actually think could be any better than what's currently in place.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

I don't blame them at all. Who are you supposed to turn to when the supreme court starts censoring you? There's no one else above them.

owebmaster 1y ago
They even literally asked for Extra-Terrestrial help. Funny times. Awaiting 4 years for the next election is not that painful.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  I think it's sad, not funny. Supreme court judges are not elected. They don't even have to pass tests.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    They gotta follow the constitution. And judge criminals. Exactly that is what they are doing. For that to be happening at the same time as the US devolve into a dictatorship is quite didactic
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > They gotta follow the constitution. No, they don't. They can do whatever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. Whatever they write on a paper becomes law, simply because police enforces it. The fact they weren't and aren't following the constitution was a major cause of January 8th. Censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, especially that of a political nature. And political censorship is exactly what they engaged in. They just happened to use euphemisms like "fake news". I remember one case where they censordd a documentary before it was even published. A priori censorship, something not seen in these lands since the military dictatorship. > And judge criminals. Supreme court's purpose is to judge politicians with immunity and assorted privilges. Not common citizens.
      - owebmaster 1y ago
        I'm glad the people that think like you are a tiny minority that is being persecuted and answering for the crimes. The supreme court never worked better.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. I'm trying to warn you that one day it will be your turn to be persecuted, as it often happens. I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        > I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. pretty much the opposite: when the same STF changed laws to put Lula in jail, I did not supported people that wanted to overthrow the rule of law. You do. Now. But at the time you were in favor of the same supreme court change the law in favor of your ideology, which removed Lula from the election that he was leading. > I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Do you think you have it hard? That this is some kind of torture? The same people that worship coronel Ustra? > Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it. You should not be imprisoned for your thoughts. But corrupt politicians and criminals should not be protected by unrestricted free speech.
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        I only started keeping up with politics after Bolsonaro became president. So I'm afraid I don't remember which abuses, if any, were committed by courts at the time of Lula's imprisonment. I don't doubt you. Feel free to elaborate on the matter if you'd like, in good faith. I don't support "judicial activism" at all. Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written to each individual case, no more and no less. Any deviation from that is a power grab. In other words: judges must not legislate, that is the job of our elected representatives. Any attempt from a judge to legislate is a small coup against the people. Actual lawyers have told me: "instead of applying the law, the surpreme court decided to legislate". This is normal in Brazil and it shouldn't be.
  - cassianoleal 1y ago
    > They don't even have to pass tests. That's not true. At the very least, they need to be Law Bachelors. Furthermore, after being nominated by the President they need to get approval from the Senate.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that. Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court. Just yet another example of how backwards this country is.
      - cassianoleal 1y ago
        > By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that. Those are essentially admission tests. They're not meant to test the knowledge or ability of the candidates, but rather as a way to filter out the excess because there's higher demand than offer of those jobs. The Supreme Court justices don't have to do that because they are selected by the President instead. > Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. Some of the supreme court justices might have not passed admission tests for jobs they were not interested in but that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law. > Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court. No doubt it's possible but I find some of the foundational premises of your chain of causation to be misguided at best. If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro who can't follow simple logic and has repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance of how the Brazilian Civil Law system differs from his FBI training on Common Law concepts and strategies? One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled because it was so full of vices that Cracolândia junkies seem productive and well adjusted in comparison. Furthermore, you have complained in other comments that the justices are not elected. Leaving out any arguments around why that's the case, and why this is a desired feature of the system, how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? There are so many goalposts in your messages that it's very difficult to understand what you actually think could be any better than what's currently in place.