4 ms·

>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 democratical

>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
  >Our other elected representatives have blocked his plans many times but he always forces them through via the supreme court As have all the governments before him, with the only exception of Bolsonaro who was dumb enough to provoke the Supreme Court against him. This is something that Trump did better in the US, as he moved loyal conservatives there. Which bring us to this failed model of the executive being able to appoint judges to the supreme court (both in the US and Brazil), which totally affects the division of power between Executive and Judiciary. Something I'm sure we agree on here. > Plenty of doubt can be raised regarding the trustworthiness of elections conducted via our voting machines Here you are replicating talking points from Bolsonaro (who BTW copied it from Trump), who couldn't find any trustful source to back his claim (I remember that pathetic argentinian guy they got before the elections) that has the only objective of supporting him on his failed coup. And those same "flawed machines" were used in Bolsonaro election. >Especially since these exact same judges also control the electoral courts and through them the electoral process As the other commenter said, remember that it wasn't Lula that appointed Moraes, who is historically right wing. It's nice to tell a conspiracy story of Moraes and Lula drinking champaign together and planning the communist/socialist/whatever domination, but the truth is they play their own games individually. In my opinion, Moraes go after Bolsonaro more as a personal vendetta because of his stupid attacks against the Supreme Court in 2020. >These are my honest opinions on what's going on in my country I believe that you believe that, but I also believe that those are not your opinions, are influences from the social bubble your are inserted in. You believe the "evidence" that is presented to you when you should really be double checking everything, even what is confirming your views. The world is not black & white, left & right. You should doubt not only what comes from the "other side", but everything that is presented to you. That is usually my position, which I can tell you, is not an easy one, as all groups will consider you to be from the other side, nobody like their bias challenged.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > As have all the governments before him I don't know. As far as I can tell it's a recent phenomenon. I can't recall any other instance where failed political maneuvers were judicialized like this, can you cite any? > Which bring us to this failed model of the executive being able to appoint judges to the supreme court > Something I'm sure we agree on here. We absolutely agree on this. > Here you are replicating talking points from Bolsonaro Not at all. I've always doubted these voting machines. I'm even more of a radical than Bolsonaro ever was. Being a programmer helps. It's just that before Bolsonaro won I didn't even bother with politics because I had written off this country as a lost cause. The only talking point I replicate is that of Germany. They ruled that voting machines are unconstitutional because laymen do not understand the technology and therefore cannot audit elections. That's the most sensible argument in my opinion. > who couldn't find any trustful source to back his claim The report provided by the armed forces was plenty for me. It revealed that unaudited libraries were downloaded from the network and linked. It revealed that builds were not reproducible and thus correspondence between source and executable could not be proven. They didn't even have access to source control. I really feel sorry for all the laymen who asked for source code on the streets. They could have released the sources and it still wouldn't have proven anything. It would have been an embarrassment. It's a red herring anyway. It's up to TSE to prove beyond doubt that this system is secure. The judge made extraordinary claims: the machines are UNQUESTIONABLE. The standards of perfection he set require extraordinary evidence. He's offered nothing but censorship and persecution. This is the system through which power is transferred from the people to our representatives, any doubt at all and power should not be transferred. The key issue is whether votes are counted correctly and not diverted to some specific candidate. This concern could have been completely bypassed had they implemented the paper trail as proposed. We could have had the best of both worlds. > truth is they play their own games individually We agree on this. Lula is certainly a communist, as is Dino. The other ministers probably aren't. They aren't anti-communists either, so they still help their agenda. > In my opinion, Moraes go after Bolsonaro more as a personal vendetta because of his stupid attacks against the Supreme Court in 2020. Agreed, though his abusive conduct certainly precedes those attacks. The "fake news" inquisition began in 2019. Also, his attacks on the court may have been stupid but were certainly deserved, given their constant interference. For some reason the court would always find a reason to get in his way. Now that Lula's in power, they don't bother to block anything. > I believe that you believe that, but I also believe that those are not your opinions, are influences from the social bubble your are inserted in. I don't think so. My views diverge significantly from those of the "bubble". We merely align on some key points. The only politician who truly represented me is dead: Enéas Ferreira Carneiro. > You believe the "evidence" that is presented to you when you should really be double checking everything, even what is confirming your views. Testing my world view is the number one reason why I post these comments here. I actively seek out debates. Either I'll win the argument or I'll be forced to change my world view. I'm relying on adversaries to present conflicting evidence. Obviously this doesn't work if people refuse to debate in good faith.

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
>Our other elected representatives have blocked his plans many times but he always forces them through via the supreme court As have all the governments before him, with the only exception of Bolsonaro who was dumb enough to provoke the Supreme Court against him. This is something that Trump did better in the US, as he moved loyal conservatives there. Which bring us to this failed model of the executive being able to appoint judges to the supreme court (both in the US and Brazil), which totally affects the division of power between Executive and Judiciary. Something I'm sure we agree on here. > Plenty of doubt can be raised regarding the trustworthiness of elections conducted via our voting machines Here you are replicating talking points from Bolsonaro (who BTW copied it from Trump), who couldn't find any trustful source to back his claim (I remember that pathetic argentinian guy they got before the elections) that has the only objective of supporting him on his failed coup. And those same "flawed machines" were used in Bolsonaro election. >Especially since these exact same judges also control the electoral courts and through them the electoral process As the other commenter said, remember that it wasn't Lula that appointed Moraes, who is historically right wing. It's nice to tell a conspiracy story of Moraes and Lula drinking champaign together and planning the communist/socialist/whatever domination, but the truth is they play their own games individually. In my opinion, Moraes go after Bolsonaro more as a personal vendetta because of his stupid attacks against the Supreme Court in 2020. >These are my honest opinions on what's going on in my country I believe that you believe that, but I also believe that those are not your opinions, are influences from the social bubble your are inserted in. You believe the "evidence" that is presented to you when you should really be double checking everything, even what is confirming your views. The world is not black & white, left & right. You should doubt not only what comes from the "other side", but everything that is presented to you. That is usually my position, which I can tell you, is not an easy one, as all groups will consider you to be from the other side, nobody like their bias challenged.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > As have all the governments before him I don't know. As far as I can tell it's a recent phenomenon. I can't recall any other instance where failed political maneuvers were judicialized like this, can you cite any? > Which bring us to this failed model of the executive being able to appoint judges to the supreme court > Something I'm sure we agree on here. We absolutely agree on this. > Here you are replicating talking points from Bolsonaro Not at all. I've always doubted these voting machines. I'm even more of a radical than Bolsonaro ever was. Being a programmer helps. It's just that before Bolsonaro won I didn't even bother with politics because I had written off this country as a lost cause. The only talking point I replicate is that of Germany. They ruled that voting machines are unconstitutional because laymen do not understand the technology and therefore cannot audit elections. That's the most sensible argument in my opinion. > who couldn't find any trustful source to back his claim The report provided by the armed forces was plenty for me. It revealed that unaudited libraries were downloaded from the network and linked. It revealed that builds were not reproducible and thus correspondence between source and executable could not be proven. They didn't even have access to source control. I really feel sorry for all the laymen who asked for source code on the streets. They could have released the sources and it still wouldn't have proven anything. It would have been an embarrassment. It's a red herring anyway. It's up to TSE to prove beyond doubt that this system is secure. The judge made extraordinary claims: the machines are UNQUESTIONABLE. The standards of perfection he set require extraordinary evidence. He's offered nothing but censorship and persecution. This is the system through which power is transferred from the people to our representatives, any doubt at all and power should not be transferred. The key issue is whether votes are counted correctly and not diverted to some specific candidate. This concern could have been completely bypassed had they implemented the paper trail as proposed. We could have had the best of both worlds. > truth is they play their own games individually We agree on this. Lula is certainly a communist, as is Dino. The other ministers probably aren't. They aren't anti-communists either, so they still help their agenda. > In my opinion, Moraes go after Bolsonaro more as a personal vendetta because of his stupid attacks against the Supreme Court in 2020. Agreed, though his abusive conduct certainly precedes those attacks. The "fake news" inquisition began in 2019. Also, his attacks on the court may have been stupid but were certainly deserved, given their constant interference. For some reason the court would always find a reason to get in his way. Now that Lula's in power, they don't bother to block anything. > I believe that you believe that, but I also believe that those are not your opinions, are influences from the social bubble your are inserted in. I don't think so. My views diverge significantly from those of the "bubble". We merely align on some key points. The only politician who truly represented me is dead: Enéas Ferreira Carneiro. > You believe the "evidence" that is presented to you when you should really be double checking everything, even what is confirming your views. Testing my world view is the number one reason why I post these comments here. I actively seek out debates. Either I'll win the argument or I'll be forced to change my world view. I'm relying on adversaries to present conflicting evidence. Obviously this doesn't work if people refuse to debate in good faith.