The international press has questioned the performance of the Supreme Court (STF) Minister Alexandre de Moraes and appointed alleged excessive powers. British magazine The Economist even suggested “moderation” to the court in one of two reports on the Brazilian judiciary published this week.
Titled “The Supreme Court of Brazil under judgment”, in free translation, one of the texts says that democracy in Brazil has been suffering from what it calls “rotten” or “corrupt” politicians. But it also addresses what you see as another problem: judges with an excess of power. And it evaluates that no one better personifies the situation than Alexandre de Moraes.
“Its history shows that the judiciary needs to be reduced,” he says.
The Economist evaluates that the amount of uncontrolled content volume on the Brazilian internet is overwhelming. However, it considers that Moraes has already exceeded seriously. For example, when he ordered actions against Bolsonarist entrepreneurs due to the content of private messages.
Economist points out that, even surprisingly for outsiders, Moraes only worked for center-right politicians before joining the Supreme. And now the vehicle considers there to be a personal component for what it calls the Moraes campaign.
“A more plausible explanation for Mr. Moraes’s campaign is this: it is personal. He receives constant threats of death. These threats seem to invigorate him and gave his decisions an absolutist tone,” says excerpt.
Economist reports still raise points from the Supreme itself. One of the texts talks about the severity of the accusations against former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL). However, he says there is “growing questions about the court’s own behavior, the quality of justice he offers and the adequacy of his penalties.”
To illustrate, he mentions that Bolsonaro will be tried by five judges, instead of all 11. It also points out that one of them was the personal lawyer of President Lula and another, his former Justice Minister. In this case, Cristiano Zanin and Flávio Dino, respectively.
At the same time, the report ponders that the Supreme has acted within the law, although with more powers than that normally seen in other higher courts around the world, and that often intervenes due to an inaction of other Brazilian institutions.
The solution? Economist says part of the answer is that the Supreme has moderation. As? Taking Bolsonaro’s case to the plenary and avoiding monocratic decisions, for example.
This month, the American magazine The New Yorker published a long report about the magistrate, including the disaffected that accumulated along the way, such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
“If Goebbels were alive and had access to X, we would be convicted,” Moraes told the magazine. “The Nazis would have conquered the world.”
The profile says that sometimes Moraes investigations forced the limits of his authority, such as when he ordered social networking accounts without further explanation of the platforms.
“Sometimes, however, Moraes’s investigations forced the limits of his authority. He blocked more than one hundred social networking accounts without providing explanations to the platform. After banishing X, imposed a fine of almost nine thousand dollars a day on anyone accessing the platform through a VPN,” says excerpt.
Recently, The New York Times has highlighted Bolsonaro’s trial in the Supreme, drawing attention to the fact that Moraes is the rapporteur and, at the same time, one of the targets of the murder plan revealed in the coup investigation.
