3 ms·

> 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

> 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
> that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law I disagree. I have far more confidence in judges who competed vigorously for their positions than in judges who were merely appointed by presidents. > If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro Every test has the potential for false positives and false negatives. We want to select good judges and reject bad judges. There is an inherent risk of selecting bad judges and rejecting good judges. Of course, the exact statistics have never been determined. It's reasonable to assume that the tests optimize for low false positive rate. Rejecting good judges is not as bad as accepting a bad judge. By reading court cases, I formed a very positive opinion of concursado judges. I've always found their argumentation to be lucid and persuasive, even when I didn't agree with their rulings. I simply can't say the same of the supreme court. > One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled That fact deeply disgusts me. It really does. I wish things had worked out differently. > how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? It's not. I believe supreme court judges should also have to pass admission tests. That should be the one and only way to become a supreme court judge. I claim the supreme court has amassed so much power it is now openly legislating. It's effectively running the country. These people are not elected representatives. Therefore, it follows that Brazil is not actually a democracy. That is the point I sought to make in this thread. I don't actually want judges to be elected. I just think that's a requirement for Brazil to be called a democracy at this point in time. If we're a democracy, and judges hold all the power, then we should be able to vote for them. The only reason I go out of my way to point out that these are unelected judges is to highlight the fact that Brazil is a democracy in name only.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

> that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law I disagree. I have far more confidence in judges who competed vigorously for their positions than in judges who were merely appointed by presidents. > If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro Every test has the potential for false positives and false negatives. We want to select good judges and reject bad judges. There is an inherent risk of selecting bad judges and rejecting good judges. Of course, the exact statistics have never been determined. It's reasonable to assume that the tests optimize for low false positive rate. Rejecting good judges is not as bad as accepting a bad judge. By reading court cases, I formed a very positive opinion of concursado judges. I've always found their argumentation to be lucid and persuasive, even when I didn't agree with their rulings. I simply can't say the same of the supreme court. > One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled That fact deeply disgusts me. It really does. I wish things had worked out differently. > how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? It's not. I believe supreme court judges should also have to pass admission tests. That should be the one and only way to become a supreme court judge. I claim the supreme court has amassed so much power it is now openly legislating. It's effectively running the country. These people are not elected representatives. Therefore, it follows that Brazil is not actually a democracy. That is the point I sought to make in this thread. I don't actually want judges to be elected. I just think that's a requirement for Brazil to be called a democracy at this point in time. If we're a democracy, and judges hold all the power, then we should be able to vote for them. The only reason I go out of my way to point out that these are unelected judges is to highlight the fact that Brazil is a democracy in name only.