[falleng0d]

Brazil is a dictatorship in disguise. Supreme court is the executive branch. There is no law the court can do anything it wants, arrest anyone for any reason. There is no expiry date for their term.

As a Brazilian I can’t see a future where the people win. It’s not even close it’s full control and all of the power is concentrated in the government upper branch.

The system is designed to keep them in power there is nothing that can be done just leave the country

[arunabha]

I'm not from Brazil, so I'm curious if you're saying the court broke some law by imposing house arrest on Bolsonaro? This part of the article makes it seem like it was done pretty legally.

> In a statement, Federal Police said it executed a preventive arrest warrant > that had been requested by the police themselves and authorized by the > Supreme Court, CNN affiliate CNN Brasil reported.

[ameixaseca]

Not the person you are responding to, but just as an FYI: in Brazil right now there are certain groups attempting to stamp political motivation on the decisions of the upper judiciary and discredit its impartiality and capacity to judge.

The reason most of these politicians and alies are acting like this is fear.

See what they just tried to vote a couple of months ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Amendment_of_Sh...

The popular name of this amendment should tell you everything you need to know about its purpose.

There were several large protests before the vote on the Senate, and before it was eventually ruled unconstitutional by a commission from the Senate.

It is also important to note members of Congress and Senate already have a certain level of immunity in Brazil and can only be judged by the Supreme Federal Court, and this would further restrict the ability of the judiciary branch to give sentences to politicians convicted of any serious wrongdoing.

Last, but not least, I can tell you that you quoting the CNN article would probably ruffle some feathers from (most of) the same ones questioning the Supreme Court. I speak from experience.

*edit: spelling

[matheusmoreira]

"Certain groups" are ruining the court's impartiality by pointing out the fact it has been investigating, prosecuting, judging and executing made up crimes against themselves since at least 2019?

Judge straight up comes out to the public and brags about how they all personally defeated Bolsonaro? Same guy who's implicated in the USAID nonsense? And you make it out to be a conspiracy theory?

I'm tired, man.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

The "shielding" law is absolute nonsense yet I can't even fault them for trying. What else are you supposed to do when you have a supreme court that has essentially usurped all power?

[ameixaseca]

The the link above does not survive 15 seconds of a Google search for its first statement:

https://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/D...

It names the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE as the author, not the Supreme Court.

> And you make it out to be a conspiracy theory?

I did not say this and I was not trying to imply a conspiracy in what I said, only that this is a blatant attempt from the Congress to protect their own interests.

It is not a conspiracy when Congress members like Nikolas Ferreira say things like:

'' If any Member of Parliament commits a crime, they will go to jail. This House just needs to say "yes." ''

Which means the Congress now will be the final judge, overriding the Supreme Court (via secret voting, btw).

Source for his speech: https://www.camara.leg.br/internet/SitaqWeb/TextoHTML.asp?et... (in Portuguese)

> Judge straight up comes out to the public and brags about how they all personally defeated Bolsonaro? Same guy who's implicated in the USAID nonsense? And you make it out to be a conspiracy theory?

FYI, I was not taking about Bolsonaro.

Again, 30 seconds of Google and I can find not only what are you taking about USAID (Musk accusing USAID of interfering in the Brazilian election) but the fact that this is most likely false and has no basis whatsoever.

A claim requires evidence, and as far as the evidence goes it is pretty much all there is.

For the other claims, it is a matter of opinion. I don't see it that way.

> I'm tired, man.

I think, in a sense, everyone is.

The question you need to ask youself is: what are you fighting for?

I couldn't put it better than this article: https://www.ibanet.org/Bolsonaro-conviction-signals-Brazil%E...

My suggestion is for you to consider everything Bolsonaro says and stands for and ask youself: is he really standing for democracy? Are the judges in the way of someone that stands for democracy?

If your answer is yes, then we have a fundamental disagreement and from this point on we can only agree to disagree.

[matheusmoreira]

> 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...

https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mar-22/alexandre-moraes-manda...

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-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]

> 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]

The brazilian supreme court has been breaking the law and relentlessly usurping power for years now.

It began in 2019 when some magazine ran a damning article on one of these judges. In response to that they launched a "fake news" inquisition where they were the victims, investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners against unspecified persons for wildcard crimes covering the whole brazilian territory. Thus began the escalating abuses of the court.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

The "fake news" inquisition was eventually repurposed for political censorship when Bolsonaro was up for reelection. Political censorship is explicitly unconstitutional, by the way.

It's pretty ironic to watch them condemn Bolsonaro for a coup attempt. Their own coup was quite successful.

[brazukadev]

As a Brazilian, I'm seeing a lot of people happy and thinking the justice system finally is working like it was supposed to. Some people are complaining they are being a bit harsh but better a harsh justice system than what we had in the past.

[TitaRusell]

America is batshit insane enough these days that Bolsonaro could flee to the American embassy and Trump would let him stay.

[matheusmoreira]

Fairly accurate representation of the status quo. The decisions of the unelected supreme court are 100% political and monocratic. This country is a dictatorship of the judiciary.

[gmerc]

Ah the terrible dictatorship of the rule of law

[inglor_cz]

Dominance of courts does not necessarily mean rule of law.

Courts are human institutions fallible to all sorts of human weaknesses. Rule of law is a more abstract concept.

Would you subject your startup or your personal property to Brazilian courts voluntarily as a foreigner? If not, maybe you don't trust them either.

[ameixaseca]

Kind of an odd conclusion to take from a weird question.

I would not subject myself or my property to a foreign court system for various reasons, but first and foremost because I'm not subject to their laws.

If I'm on Brazilian territory or doing business in Brazil, however, the question is equally pointless: barring certain exceptions, you are subject to the Brazilian laws to the extent of your presence in the country - period. You have no choice on this matter.

Courts are fallible and that's why you have levels, due process, and presumption of innocence. The Brazilian system is not perfect and it's slow but you cannot say the American system is much better when comparing decisions at same court level.

[inglor_cz]

"first and foremost because I'm not subject to their laws"

People often shop for good jurisdictions when founding companies or even concluding contracts which need an arbitration clause. Countries which have a reputation for quick and neutral justice tend to attract foreigners for this purpose. In Europe, either UK or the Netherlands are on the top of this ladder.

IDK where precisely Brazil stands on this ladder. They seem to attract quite a lot of FDI, so maybe not as bad as the GP said.

[ameixaseca]

This wasn't clear for me from the question, though I understand where you are coming from.

Investing is certainly not as risky as people from outside of Brazil generally think it is, since the banking system is well regulated and the legal framework is solid.

My two cents: if someone that is a foreigner in both Brazil and the US asked me what I think, I would say investing is Brazil is likely less risky than the US at the moment.

[epolanski]

> There is no law the court can do anything it wants, arrest anyone for any reason. There is no expiry date for their term.

The judiciary does not write the laws, only applies them.

I'm quite sure that removing a tracking bracelet and trying to flee is against the law.

While it's true that the judiciary holds lots of weight in Brazil, let's not forget that different branches fighting over their boundaries is the norm in any functioning government and democracy.

We're merely more used to the judiciary bending to the executive, Brazil's an exception on this.

[matheusmoreira]

> The judiciary does not write the laws, only applies them.

The Magnitsky sanctioned judge is known to have made "suggestions" to our elected representatives regarding the "fake news" censorship laws that were proposed years ago. Our lawmakers rejected that law, and the courts abused their power to ram the regulations down our throats anyway via their own "resolutions".

Brazilian judiciary is ripe with "activist" judges. Every single act of "judicial activism" is a coup against the brazilian population. Not a single brazilian voted for these judges.

[brazukadev]

The fact that you think a "magnitsky" sanction means anything is hilarious.