5 ms·

He speaks of democracy but rules through the unelected supreme court. Every time his party is defeated democratically, they bring it to the supreme court and th

He speaks of democracy but rules through the unelected supreme court. Every time his party is defeated democratically, they bring it to the supreme court and they force it through. Our representatives blocked his attempt to raise taxes and the supreme court raised them on his behalf. The only reason they don't dissolve these expensive institutions is they let him pretend that this country is a democracy. He speaks of sovereignty despite being a pro-crime socialist and globalist. It was under his party's 20+ year rule that drug trafficking organized crime gangs came to dominate over a quarter of our territory, create a parallel state, pull off a stealth secession and infiltrate society and even the official government at every level. He makes a show of not submitting to the USA and then turns around and kowtows to China. He openly disdains the military, nationalism and the very concept of arming and defending oneself, then he turns around and starts speaking of sovereignty as if he had nuclear weapons to deter adversaries with. The sheer dishonesty, the sheer number of contradictions in this delusional communist's politics is enough to test my sanity. I feel like I'm being gaslit.

dakial1 1y ago
>Every time his party is defeated democratically, they bring it to the supreme court and they force it through. What? When did this happen? He won democratically, through the vote, all the times he became president. This seems some wild MAGA-like conspiracy stuff.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > What? When did this happen? I explained in the comment. I wasn't referring to elections, I was referring to his presidential acts and political maneuvers. Our other elected representatives have blocked his plans many times but he always forces them through via the supreme court. Consider this relatively recent episode: his minister tried to raise taxes on all financial operations and was blocked by other elected politicians. What did his party do? They brought the issue to the supreme court which promptly "validated" the tax hike. They even applied it retroactively which is unconstitutional. He uses the supreme court to bypass our elected representatives when they block him, thereby ruling through it. Not a single brazilian voted for those judges. This is not democratic. > He won democratically, through the vote, all the times he became president. Plenty of doubt can be raised regarding the trustworthiness of elections conducted via our voting machines. Especially since these exact same judges also control the electoral courts and through them the electoral process. They have rejected two proposals by our elected representatives to add a paper trail to the system for totally unconvincing reasons such as "it's too hard to implement in a timely manner". I wasn't talking about that though. Not in this case. > This seems some wild MAGA-like conspiracy stuff. These are my honest opinions on what's going on in my country. I really don't care if they sound "conspiratorial", my only concern is that they are coherent and logical. My world view can change if I'm presented with convincing evidence. Every single thread about brazilian politics, I post my views, secretly hoping that someone will show me that I'm wrong and that things are not as bad as I think they are. Nobody's done it yet.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Not a single brazilian voted for those judges. But per your constitution, the supreme court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, a method which has been in place since 1988, and these have never been elected positions under previous constitutional regimes. I only see conservatives and right wingers bring up this argument about judges not being elected (also in the US). Liberals and leftists often complain bitterly about court decisions and may accuse judges of being biased if they were appointed by their political opponents, but you never see them complaining about judges being 'unelected' because the constitutional arrangement is that those positions are appointed. After years of listening to this non-argument, I've come to the conclusion that the onl purpose in making it is de-legitimization of the judiciary. You never hear people saying 'we should change the constitution to have judges elected rahter than appointed'. That would be a valid position (though not one I share), because it acknowledges the reality of how things are and proposes altering it through standard constitutional means. But complaining that they're unelected is simply characterizing the judiciary as an imposition. If that's how you feel, then implicitly you're rejecting the constitution that sets things up that way; and in that case you should just say up front that you dislike the constitution and want to change or replace it. my only concern is that they are coherent and logical. In that case you should probably begin by conforming your opinions to legal reality as outlined above. It's hard for anyone to have a logical argument with you if your conclusions are built upon hidden premises like 'the constitution is wrong'.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > supreme court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate Yes, and the result is transparently political decision making that overrides written law. These judges are supposed to apply the law as written, not reinterpret it however they want to fit their political needs. It's literally illegal for these justices to engage in politics and partidarism. It doesn't stop them. Nobody even tries to hold them accountable for it. They'd just judge themselves innocent anyway. > I only see conservatives and right wingers bring up this argument about judges not being elected The left used to criticize Alexandre de Moraes quite a lot before he started to persecute the right. They too accused him of tyranny, coups and whatnot. I'm not unique in holding this position. > the only purpose in making it is de-legitimization of the judiciary. That's the point. I don't really respect this court as legitimate. Judges in Brazil are selected via concurso público. Lawyers compete with each other via standardized tests and the best ones get the position. It's entirely possible for lesser judges to be more qualified to apply the law than supreme court judges. They are supposed to be impartial but that's impossible due to the fact they are appointed by politicians. Lula rejoiced in his current mandate because he was "finally able to get a communist into the supreme court". He obviously aims to use the court to implement his political agenda, subverting its actual function. Thus we end up with totally absurd situations where one of Lula's communists and his former lawyer are passing judgement on his main political opposition. They just decided that social media companies were liable for user content despite written law saying liability only exists if court orders are disobeyed. Leaks from their office show that they decide things monocratically and then ask their paralegals to draft arguments in support of the decision. When they rejected attempts to add a paper trail to the voting machines the arguments they used to justify their decision were total nonsense like "it can't be implemented quickly enough". They're the supreme court so they get the last say even if the argument is bullshit. I'm inclined to dismiss any arguments they put forward and consider only the political context surrounding the decision instead. There's also the fact they don't have a lot of respect for the constitution they're supposed to be interpreting. Numerous times I witnessed them do the exact opposite of what the text says. In Brazil censorship is unconstitutional and political censorship doubly so, yet that's exactly what they did. And that's far from being the only one example. > You never hear people saying 'we should change the constitution to have judges elected rahter than appointed'. Well that's exactly what I'm saying. If these judges are gonna be politicians in disguise, then I demand the ability to vote them out after a few years. Their lifetime mandates are unacceptable. Normally in Brazil, judges are selected via concurso público. Lawyers are tested and the best performing ones get the position. I suppose that's also a viable alternative. > that's how you feel, then implicitly you're rejecting the constitution You're right. I hadn't realized it until now. > In that case you should probably begin by conforming your opinions to legal reality as outlined above. Truth is I'm not sure this country has laws anymore. The law is whatever the judges write down on a piece of paper. > It's hard for anyone to have a logical argument with you if your conclusions are built upon hidden premises like 'the constitution is wrong'. I seriously doubt the writers of this constitution anticipated that the judiciary would usurp the powers of the executive and the legislative and that senators and congressmen would be unwilling to put a stop to it due to fear of retaliation. I definitely object to the parts of the constitution that gave rise to this sorry situation. It should definitely be amended so it doesn't happen again.

dakial1 1y ago

>Every time his party is defeated democratically, they bring it to the supreme court and they force it through. What? When did this happen? He won democratically, through the vote, all the times he became president. This seems some wild MAGA-like conspiracy stuff.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
> What? When did this happen? I explained in the comment. I wasn't referring to elections, I was referring to his presidential acts and political maneuvers. Our other elected representatives have blocked his plans many times but he always forces them through via the supreme court. Consider this relatively recent episode: his minister tried to raise taxes on all financial operations and was blocked by other elected politicians. What did his party do? They brought the issue to the supreme court which promptly "validated" the tax hike. They even applied it retroactively which is unconstitutional. He uses the supreme court to bypass our elected representatives when they block him, thereby ruling through it. Not a single brazilian voted for those judges. This is not democratic. > He won democratically, through the vote, all the times he became president. Plenty of doubt can be raised regarding the trustworthiness of elections conducted via our voting machines. Especially since these exact same judges also control the electoral courts and through them the electoral process. They have rejected two proposals by our elected representatives to add a paper trail to the system for totally unconvincing reasons such as "it's too hard to implement in a timely manner". I wasn't talking about that though. Not in this case. > This seems some wild MAGA-like conspiracy stuff. These are my honest opinions on what's going on in my country. I really don't care if they sound "conspiratorial", my only concern is that they are coherent and logical. My world view can change if I'm presented with convincing evidence. Every single thread about brazilian politics, I post my views, secretly hoping that someone will show me that I'm wrong and that things are not as bad as I think they are. Nobody's done it yet.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Not a single brazilian voted for those judges. But per your constitution, the supreme court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, a method which has been in place since 1988, and these have never been elected positions under previous constitutional regimes. I only see conservatives and right wingers bring up this argument about judges not being elected (also in the US). Liberals and leftists often complain bitterly about court decisions and may accuse judges of being biased if they were appointed by their political opponents, but you never see them complaining about judges being 'unelected' because the constitutional arrangement is that those positions are appointed. After years of listening to this non-argument, I've come to the conclusion that the onl purpose in making it is de-legitimization of the judiciary. You never hear people saying 'we should change the constitution to have judges elected rahter than appointed'. That would be a valid position (though not one I share), because it acknowledges the reality of how things are and proposes altering it through standard constitutional means. But complaining that they're unelected is simply characterizing the judiciary as an imposition. If that's how you feel, then implicitly you're rejecting the constitution that sets things up that way; and in that case you should just say up front that you dislike the constitution and want to change or replace it. my only concern is that they are coherent and logical. In that case you should probably begin by conforming your opinions to legal reality as outlined above. It's hard for anyone to have a logical argument with you if your conclusions are built upon hidden premises like 'the constitution is wrong'.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > supreme court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate Yes, and the result is transparently political decision making that overrides written law. These judges are supposed to apply the law as written, not reinterpret it however they want to fit their political needs. It's literally illegal for these justices to engage in politics and partidarism. It doesn't stop them. Nobody even tries to hold them accountable for it. They'd just judge themselves innocent anyway. > I only see conservatives and right wingers bring up this argument about judges not being elected The left used to criticize Alexandre de Moraes quite a lot before he started to persecute the right. They too accused him of tyranny, coups and whatnot. I'm not unique in holding this position. > the only purpose in making it is de-legitimization of the judiciary. That's the point. I don't really respect this court as legitimate. Judges in Brazil are selected via concurso público. Lawyers compete with each other via standardized tests and the best ones get the position. It's entirely possible for lesser judges to be more qualified to apply the law than supreme court judges. They are supposed to be impartial but that's impossible due to the fact they are appointed by politicians. Lula rejoiced in his current mandate because he was "finally able to get a communist into the supreme court". He obviously aims to use the court to implement his political agenda, subverting its actual function. Thus we end up with totally absurd situations where one of Lula's communists and his former lawyer are passing judgement on his main political opposition. They just decided that social media companies were liable for user content despite written law saying liability only exists if court orders are disobeyed. Leaks from their office show that they decide things monocratically and then ask their paralegals to draft arguments in support of the decision. When they rejected attempts to add a paper trail to the voting machines the arguments they used to justify their decision were total nonsense like "it can't be implemented quickly enough". They're the supreme court so they get the last say even if the argument is bullshit. I'm inclined to dismiss any arguments they put forward and consider only the political context surrounding the decision instead. There's also the fact they don't have a lot of respect for the constitution they're supposed to be interpreting. Numerous times I witnessed them do the exact opposite of what the text says. In Brazil censorship is unconstitutional and political censorship doubly so, yet that's exactly what they did. And that's far from being the only one example. > You never hear people saying 'we should change the constitution to have judges elected rahter than appointed'. Well that's exactly what I'm saying. If these judges are gonna be politicians in disguise, then I demand the ability to vote them out after a few years. Their lifetime mandates are unacceptable. Normally in Brazil, judges are selected via concurso público. Lawyers are tested and the best performing ones get the position. I suppose that's also a viable alternative. > that's how you feel, then implicitly you're rejecting the constitution You're right. I hadn't realized it until now. > In that case you should probably begin by conforming your opinions to legal reality as outlined above. Truth is I'm not sure this country has laws anymore. The law is whatever the judges write down on a piece of paper. > It's hard for anyone to have a logical argument with you if your conclusions are built upon hidden premises like 'the constitution is wrong'. I seriously doubt the writers of this constitution anticipated that the judiciary would usurp the powers of the executive and the legislative and that senators and congressmen would be unwilling to put a stop to it due to fear of retaliation. I definitely object to the parts of the constitution that gave rise to this sorry situation. It should definitely be amended so it doesn't happen again.