4 ms·

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

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.
        defrost 1y ago
        > Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written, no more and no less. Law is not that simple and is full of tricky edge cases and outright vague ambiguity. Lower Courts can easily rule to a clear letter of law as stated in a great many cases. eg: Does evidence exist to prove a defendant broke into locked premises or not? Does a jury all agree that multiple pieces of submitted evidence are sufficient to establish a conclusion on balance despite all pieces of evidence having some issue? High Courts and Supreme Courts exist to ponder whether lower courts have correctly applied the laws. This would not be required if it were at all possible to have machines that implement the law exactly as written, no more and no less.

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.
      - defrost 1y ago
        > Judges should be machines that implement the law exactly as written, no more and no less. Law is not that simple and is full of tricky edge cases and outright vague ambiguity. Lower Courts can easily rule to a clear letter of law as stated in a great many cases. eg: Does evidence exist to prove a defendant broke into locked premises or not? Does a jury all agree that multiple pieces of submitted evidence are sufficient to establish a conclusion on balance despite all pieces of evidence having some issue? High Courts and Supreme Courts exist to ponder whether lower courts have correctly applied the laws. This would not be required if it were at all possible to have machines that implement the law exactly as written, no more and no less.