Public debate is impoverished when interlocutors distort the argument they criticize to invest against a scarecrow – an imaginary argument. Or introduces irrelevant question (known by Jargon Red Herring), to divert the focus of the original discussion. That’s what you did in this Sheet in relation to my column.
According to him, in the face of the approach of Bolsonaro’s judgment, appeals have emerged for self-restarting the judiciary by “critics who ask for moderation, in the name of strengthening the rule of law in the country, to delegitimize eventual conviction of the former president.” States that “this argument is unfair.” And attributes me “this kind of argument”.
And it continues, “in the text, it is suggested that the existence of a privileged forum is not one of the factors to have a” hypertrophied court and judges. “And he sees” between the lines ” – it could only be between the lines, the imaginary conclusion that” there is an accusation of excess in the use of criminal attributions “by the Supreme Ministers in the current context of judgment.
The column is clear – I do not refer to Bolsonaro’s judgment. The discussion of self-restart refers only to the behavior of a Supreme Minister in question without any relation to the judgment. Nor is there endorsement of the cry. On the contrary, I point out its likely ineffectiveness. “There is cry for self -restarting. But from the point of view of a positive analysis, what effectively matters is the incentive structure of the actors involved.” The adversative conjunction does not allow ambiguity: the clamor for self -restarting is largely a vain hope in the face of the incentive structure. This is the thesis.
And this is due to the fact that it is shaped by structural causes. Political scientists made formal models about the interaction between the three powers and tested the argument empirically. When rival forces control the executive and legislative powers, the institutional conditions for the autonomy of the judiciary are expanded. But this is not all as I explain in the column. The autonomy of the judiciary in the country has historically been the largest in Latin America, as strict research demonstrates. There are other factors that contribute to hyperprotagonism – corruption, impeachments, and the fact that the Supreme Court went from referee to crimes victim.
That the STF’s criminal jurisdiction is a pillar of its fortress is an empirical argument used by political scientists and jurists. I have written columns on the subject since 2019. It is a fact. The analysis is positive: seeks to identify causes and patterns. It is at least curious that Glezer uses an example that undermines his argument: the forum is an example that contradicts the thesis it supports. There has been no self -restart here in the context of criminal proceedings. The STF recently restored the perpetual forum that had been canceled in 1999.
The STF has robbed the criminal jurisdiction especially after the monthly. Which engendered the personalistic pattern of nominations and a system perversion: control over the Supreme Court becomes supreme objective of political dispute, political insurance against punishments.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
