3 ms·

> It names the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE as the author, not the Supreme Court. https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mar-14/toffoli-abre-inquerito-apurar-ame

> It names the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE as the author, not the Supreme Court. https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mar-14/toffoli-abre-inquerito-apurar-ameacas-ministros-tribunal/ https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mar-14/toffoli-abre-inquerito... https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mar-22/alexandre-moraes-manda-bloquear-perfis-atacaram-stf/ https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mar-22/alexandre-moraes-manda... https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/comunicado-supremo-tribunal-federal1-5.pdf https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/comunic... > THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT ... > RESOLVES to instantiate the inquisition... > DESIGNATES the minister Alexandre de Moraes ... > Signed Minister Dias Toffoli, President As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed. > this is a blatant attempt from the Congress to protect their own interests That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court. They've been doing an excellent job at destroying it all by themselves. As to your claim that congress is blatantly trying to protect itself, we're not in disagreement. I even said so in my original comment. I don't agree with that asinine "shielding" law at all. I merely expressed sympathy towards their reasons for doing so. The only reason the supreme court hasn't straight up dissolved congress is they need it to exist so this country can have a veneer of democracy. Here's a notable episode: our current president and his ministers have been on a taxation spree since he took office; at some point our elected congress started blocking their attempts to raise taxes on us; the supreme court suddenly swoops in and overrides our elected congress on this matter, giving the president what he wants. The only reason the supreme court hasn't dissolved congress is they still need it to exist so this country can have a veneer of democracy. > Musk accusing USAID of interfering in the Brazilian election Not Musk. Accusations come from Mike Benz, former US State Department official. https://www.riotimesonline.com/explosive-allegation-was-lulas-2022-victory-influenced-by-bidens-u-s-programs/ https://www.riotimesonline.com/explosive-allegation-was-lula... This aligns with my own memories of the 2022 election. I stopped trusting the voting machines when I saw Biden's top CIA official tell Bolsonaro to stop questioning them. > what are you fighting for? At this point? My own sanity. This country is hopeless, it can't be fixed. Nevertheless I can't remain silent in these discussions because I feel like I'm being gaslit. > Are the judges in the way of someone that stands for democracy? The judges are themselves against democracy. My position is they have themselves pulled off a silent coup and are now running the country monocratically. Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup.

ameixaseca 1y ago
> That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court. I said they were trying to "stamp political motivation on on the decisions of the upper judiciary". IOW, to label them as politically motivated. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since these groups have been pretty vocal about it. By "certain groups" I meant "some political parties, politicians and associates", though I'm not comfortable defining it further since I don't have exact references ATM. > As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed. This is a different inquiry, check the numbers. > Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup. I understand. Let's agree to disagree.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  It's not necessary to "label" anything. They have publicly confessed. One of the judges went to a public event and bragged about it in public. "We defeated Bolsonarism!" were his exact words. You cannot possibly witness that and then continue believing in the so called impartiality of the court. He's been regretting those words ever since for obvious reasons. He's even resigned from his position. There's no need to debate this further. I could enumerate even more examples of impartiality and persecution, but if a judge publicly bragging about persecuting a political candidate fails to convince, what's the point?
  - ameixaseca 1y ago
    You are dressing the events in your interpretation and stating them as truth. The events you mention above are cherry-picked bits of information to support what you have said from the beginning. For instance, in what you said above: you are quoting an excerpt of Barroso's comments from 2023 about democracy (not his exact words) without the actual context, something he even clarified later on as it was picked up by the media. Also, his resignation now, 2 years later, has nothing to do with any of this - looks like he was just tired. I don't blame him. To be honest, now I'm tired as well. Take care.
    - 1y ago

ameixaseca 1y ago

> That's not what you said. You said "certain groups" are trying to undermine the non-existent impartiality of the supreme court. I said they were trying to "stamp political motivation on on the decisions of the upper judiciary". IOW, to label them as politically motivated. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since these groups have been pretty vocal about it. By "certain groups" I meant "some political parties, politicians and associates", though I'm not comfortable defining it further since I don't have exact references ATM. > As you can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that was claimed. This is a different inquiry, check the numbers. > Whatever Bolsonaro plotted to do is mostly irrelevant when faced with this. If anything it'd be a counter-coup. I understand. Let's agree to disagree.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
It's not necessary to "label" anything. They have publicly confessed. One of the judges went to a public event and bragged about it in public. "We defeated Bolsonarism!" were his exact words. You cannot possibly witness that and then continue believing in the so called impartiality of the court. He's been regretting those words ever since for obvious reasons. He's even resigned from his position. There's no need to debate this further. I could enumerate even more examples of impartiality and persecution, but if a judge publicly bragging about persecuting a political candidate fails to convince, what's the point?
- ameixaseca 1y ago
  You are dressing the events in your interpretation and stating them as truth. The events you mention above are cherry-picked bits of information to support what you have said from the beginning. For instance, in what you said above: you are quoting an excerpt of Barroso's comments from 2023 about democracy (not his exact words) without the actual context, something he even clarified later on as it was picked up by the media. Also, his resignation now, 2 years later, has nothing to do with any of this - looks like he was just tired. I don't blame him. To be honest, now I'm tired as well. Take care.
  - 1y ago