Publication warns of a ‘triple threat’ involving the deterioration of the quality of the Supreme Decisions, the reduction of popular support and the risk that the Court will become an instrument of ‘unliberal’ tendencies’
The Federal Supreme Court () faces a delicate moment, as pointed out by an article in The Economist magazine. The publication suggests that the Court should adopt a “moderation” stance so as not to aggravate the distrust of the Brazilian population. One of the highlighted points is the need to judge the former president in the plenary, which could help restore the impartiality image of the court. “Of the five, one is a former staff from Lula [Zanin] And another is your former Justice Minister [Dino]. Judgment, therefore, runs the risk of reinforcing the perception that the court is guided by both politics and law, ”says the text. The analysis of the magazine criticizes the minister, who is accused of exercising“ surprisingly broad powers ”and making monocratic decisions on delicate political issues. The text points out that democracy in Brazil has suffered a“ hard blow ”in the last two decades, with all presidents since 2003 illegalities.
Moraes is cited as an example of judges who hold excessive power, especially in relation to decisions about the X platform. “But Brazilian democracy has another problem: judges with excessive power. And no figure personifies this better than Alexandre de Moraes, who occupies the position in the Supreme Court. Its history shows that the judiciary needs to be reduced.”
In addition, the magazine addresses the executive’s legitimacy crisis and the “impasses and scandals” in Congress, which have contributed to the strengthening of the Supreme Court. The article mentions emblematic cases, such as the trial of the monthly and Operation Lava Jato, which show the contradictions of the Court, which, on the one hand, upheld corruption, but, on the other, annulled Lula’s convictions.
The Economist also warns of a “triple threat” involving the deterioration of the quality of STF decisions, the decrease in popular support and the risk that the court will become an instrument of illiberal tendencies. “A danger is that the quality of decision making in the Federal Supreme Court deteriorates as its jurisdiction relentlessly expands. Secondly, the more the STF seeks to manage the policy, the more it loses public support: only 12% of people say that it is doing a ‘good’ or ‘optimal’ job in 2022. Thirdly, this unrestricted power increases the threat of the STF becoming an instrument of impulses. Iliberals that violate freedom, instead of supporting it. ”
However, the publication points out that the Supreme Court is acting within the law. “Its powers come from the Brazilian Constitution, one of the longest in the world, and allows political parties, unions and many other organizations to present cases directly to the Supreme Court, rather than letting them go through lower courts.”
The magazine also points out that the interventions of the Supreme Court happen because the other Brazilian institutions do their work badly. Congress has long awaited a bill that would establish clear rules for freedom of online expression. Instead, it is emerging, it is spending its time pondering legislation that would forgive those who attacked government buildings after Bolsonaro’s electoral defeat. ”
*Report produced with the aid of AI
Posted by Fernando Dias
