3 ms·

Agreed with due process, but look at how Germany treats Nazis. Speech and expression related to Nazism is heavily regulated and subjects you to imprisonment. De

Agreed with due process, but look at how Germany treats Nazis. Speech and expression related to Nazism is heavily regulated and subjects you to imprisonment. Demonstrations/rallies are often banned. The Nazi party itself is banned. AfD is being monitored by intelligence agencies and might be banned in the future, etc. They do this defensively when groups demonstrate an "actively belligerent, aggressive stance" towards the democratic order. But yes, it would be better if all this in Brazil was formalized like in Germany.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
In Germany, voting machines are unconstitutional. German judges declared them so because they are too complex to be audited by the average person. https://www.osetinstitute.org/blog/electronic-voting-banned-in-germany https://www.osetinstitute.org/blog/electronic-voting-banned-... > When electronic voting machines are deployed, it must be possible for the citizen to check the essential steps in the election act and in the ascertainment of the results reliably and without special expert knowledge. > In a republic, elections are a matter for the entire people and a joint concern of all citizens. > Consequently, the monitoring of the election procedure must also be a matter for and a task of the citizen. > Each citizen must be able to comprehend and verify the central steps in the elections. A very wise judgement, in my opinion. In Brazil, voting machines are mandated. The supreme court judges have declared that these machines are perfect and UNQUESTIONABLE. Multiple attempts to add an auditable paper trail to the machines were made by our elected representatives, and they were also deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 The most actively belligerent, aggressive stance towards the democratic order is that of the supreme court itself. Brazil is not even a democracy to begin with. Not a single brazilian voted for these judges, yet they rule monocratically.
- Herring 1y ago
  I don't like evaluating an entire supreme court based on 1 case. I'm not a 1 issue voter. Often you find people banging on 1 issue actually care about other things the court ruled on, like covid lockdowns, or they really want to discriminate against women and gays, or they're Bolsonaro supporters, etc but they won't say that directly. Overall I think the court is running a high-risk high-reward strategy. They're trying to act as the ultimate guardian of democracy, by adopting methods that strain democratic principles. Is it smart? Hard to say, depends how it goes 10-50 years from now. Again, I'd prefer if all this was correctly formalized and institutionalized. Get your legislature on board.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    ... It's not just this one case. I wish it was just one case. Evaluate their "fake news" inquisition which started all the way back in 2019. You don't even have to take it from me. Here, a detailed comment from another HN user which I saved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 Grab any number of cases where one of the judges favored their own wife's client. They judge the cases brought by the law offices of their families. Conflicts of interest everywhere you look. Scrutinize the countless times they ignored basic due process rules and violated the constitution. They punish family members for alleged individual crimes: censoring you is not enough, they gotta preemptively censor your family as well. Even though it's literally spelled out in the constitution that both of those things are illegal. Recent leaked files demonstrate that they formed an illegal intelligence gathering task force whose purpose was to identify the political positions of defendants. They based decisions to arrest on constitutionally protected political speech. People have been arrested for "demonstrating an aversion to Lula and the worker's party". People right here on HN told me it was insane to believe one could be arrested over online comments but here we are. I asked actual freaking lawyers what their thought about these decisions. They shook their heads. "Instead of applying the law, the supreme court decided to legislate", one told me. "Judges = gods", said another. It's completely fucked up. It's much bigger than Bolsonaro. It doesn't even matter who's president since it's these guys who have the real power. Back then the left also used to complain about their censorship! Now that they're censoring the right they're heroes? Absolute nonsense. > Overall I think the court is running a high-risk high-reward strategy. It's not their place to run any strategy. They do not represent us. They were not voted into office. They have lifetime mandates for god's sake. Their purpose is to apply the law as written by our actual representatives. Any attempt to deviate from that role is to usurp the power of our elected representatives. Any so called "activism" and "creative interpretation" is tyranny and evidence of a dictatorship of the judiciary. The current situation is they could write whatever the hell they wanted on a piece of paper and it would become law. The police does their bidding. They just randomly decided that social media companies are liable for user content despite actual laws that say the exact opposite. They raised taxes. > adopting methods that strain democratic principles Their methods completely obliterate democratic principles. They are unelected judge-kings engaging in monocratic decision making and partidarian censorship. Please stop talking about democracy, just hearing that word makes me sick. > Again, I'd prefer if all this was correctly formalized and institutionalized. I'd prefer the application of Magnitsky sanctions to every single one of them and everyone even remotely connected with them. Trump is quite literally doing God's work here and my only complaint is he hasn't gone far enough yet.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

In Germany, voting machines are unconstitutional. German judges declared them so because they are too complex to be audited by the average person. https://www.osetinstitute.org/blog/electronic-voting-banned-in-germany https://www.osetinstitute.org/blog/electronic-voting-banned-... > When electronic voting machines are deployed, it must be possible for the citizen to check the essential steps in the election act and in the ascertainment of the results reliably and without special expert knowledge. > In a republic, elections are a matter for the entire people and a joint concern of all citizens. > Consequently, the monitoring of the election procedure must also be a matter for and a task of the citizen. > Each citizen must be able to comprehend and verify the central steps in the elections. A very wise judgement, in my opinion. In Brazil, voting machines are mandated. The supreme court judges have declared that these machines are perfect and UNQUESTIONABLE. Multiple attempts to add an auditable paper trail to the machines were made by our elected representatives, and they were also deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423 The most actively belligerent, aggressive stance towards the democratic order is that of the supreme court itself. Brazil is not even a democracy to begin with. Not a single brazilian voted for these judges, yet they rule monocratically.

Herring 1y ago
I don't like evaluating an entire supreme court based on 1 case. I'm not a 1 issue voter. Often you find people banging on 1 issue actually care about other things the court ruled on, like covid lockdowns, or they really want to discriminate against women and gays, or they're Bolsonaro supporters, etc but they won't say that directly. Overall I think the court is running a high-risk high-reward strategy. They're trying to act as the ultimate guardian of democracy, by adopting methods that strain democratic principles. Is it smart? Hard to say, depends how it goes 10-50 years from now. Again, I'd prefer if all this was correctly formalized and institutionalized. Get your legislature on board.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  ... It's not just this one case. I wish it was just one case. Evaluate their "fake news" inquisition which started all the way back in 2019. You don't even have to take it from me. Here, a detailed comment from another HN user which I saved: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 Grab any number of cases where one of the judges favored their own wife's client. They judge the cases brought by the law offices of their families. Conflicts of interest everywhere you look. Scrutinize the countless times they ignored basic due process rules and violated the constitution. They punish family members for alleged individual crimes: censoring you is not enough, they gotta preemptively censor your family as well. Even though it's literally spelled out in the constitution that both of those things are illegal. Recent leaked files demonstrate that they formed an illegal intelligence gathering task force whose purpose was to identify the political positions of defendants. They based decisions to arrest on constitutionally protected political speech. People have been arrested for "demonstrating an aversion to Lula and the worker's party". People right here on HN told me it was insane to believe one could be arrested over online comments but here we are. I asked actual freaking lawyers what their thought about these decisions. They shook their heads. "Instead of applying the law, the supreme court decided to legislate", one told me. "Judges = gods", said another. It's completely fucked up. It's much bigger than Bolsonaro. It doesn't even matter who's president since it's these guys who have the real power. Back then the left also used to complain about their censorship! Now that they're censoring the right they're heroes? Absolute nonsense. > Overall I think the court is running a high-risk high-reward strategy. It's not their place to run any strategy. They do not represent us. They were not voted into office. They have lifetime mandates for god's sake. Their purpose is to apply the law as written by our actual representatives. Any attempt to deviate from that role is to usurp the power of our elected representatives. Any so called "activism" and "creative interpretation" is tyranny and evidence of a dictatorship of the judiciary. The current situation is they could write whatever the hell they wanted on a piece of paper and it would become law. The police does their bidding. They just randomly decided that social media companies are liable for user content despite actual laws that say the exact opposite. They raised taxes. > adopting methods that strain democratic principles Their methods completely obliterate democratic principles. They are unelected judge-kings engaging in monocratic decision making and partidarian censorship. Please stop talking about democracy, just hearing that word makes me sick. > Again, I'd prefer if all this was correctly formalized and institutionalized. I'd prefer the application of Magnitsky sanctions to every single one of them and everyone even remotely connected with them. Trump is quite literally doing God's work here and my only complaint is he hasn't gone far enough yet.