2 ms·

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 t

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.