[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]

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]

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.

[matheusmoreira]

> You are dressing the events in your interpretation and stating them as truth.

That's how a discussion works. I state what I believe in, and people will either agree or post counterpoints. If I'm wrong then I won't be able to argue otherwise. Testing my ideas is the whole point.

Just for the record, even leftist columnists agree with me.

https://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/malu-gaspar/coluna/2025/11/de...

They admit that the supreme court is out of control. They just think it's okay because they're currently persecuting their political enemies. Now that the court has served its purpose, it's time for things to go back to normal. Just like that.

Their motives are transparent, as are their political maneuvers. It's the intellectual dishonesty that disgusts me.