[taylodl]

> but the current government backs the judge and give money to congress members to use in their constituency, in returns to get their vote on issues, and that includes to prevent the impeachment of the judge

In other words, the judge is not breaking the law.

What I think I'm hearing you say is you disagree with your checks-and-balances government's application of law, local attempts to change that law has failed for reasons, so now you support vigilantism in order to get around the law you believe was misapplied. And you support a foreign entity to enact that vigilantism on the populace's behalf?

Be careful. Brazil isn't recognized as being an authoritarian regime. You may support Musk is breaking this law, but you may not be very happy with what law(s) he decides to break next.

[PauloManrique]

> In other words, the judge is not breaking the law.

This doesn't even make sense, the fact congress doesn't do it's job does not mean the judge is not breaking the law.

> What I think I'm hearing you say is you disagree with your checks-and-balances government's application of law, local attempts to change that law has failed for reasons, so now you support vigilantism in order to get around the law you believe was misapplied.

There are no applications of the law, they are just not doing their job period. And "vigilantism" is exactly what the judge is doing.

> Be careful. Brazil isn't recognized as being an authoritarian regime.

It just takes one 10 minutes to learn that Brazilian has an authoritarian justice system.

[raul-pilla]

What a strange thing to say.

[PauloManrique]

It literally makes zero sense.

[taylodl]

If the Supreme Court says the decision is in accordance with law - and they're the ones with the legal authority to make that assessment, and the Congress has done nothing to reprimand the Supreme Court and overrule their assessment, then the judge's decision, by definition, is in accordance with law.

The problem as I see it is you disagree with that assessment.

People disagree in democracies, it's a defining feature. There are good reasons to disagree with the judge's decision and its legality. That doesn't change the fact that the people having the power vested in them by the state think otherwise and are supporting the decision.

Appealing to a vigilante like Musk to settle your internal disagreements is not a wise move, my friend.

Seek another path.

[PauloManrique]

> If the Supreme Court says the decision is in accordance with law - and they're the ones with the legal authority to make that assessment, and the Congress has done nothing to reprimand the Supreme Court and overrule their assessment, then the judge's decision, by definition, is in accordance with law.

That's completely false and not how the law works in Brazil.

> The problem as I see it is you disagree with that assessment.

Because it's just plain false.

> Appealing to a vigilante like Musk to settle your internal disagreements is not a wise move, my friend.

Nobody is appealing for Musk, he's just one, of several people affected by that and reacting.