The minister began on Wednesday (10) presenting several counterpoints to the theses and demonstrations of Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the case and that.
Appointed as hope for bolsonarism by disagreements already presented earlier, Fux began his speech by highlighting that “it is not responsible for the Supreme Court to make a political judgment of what is good or bad, convenient or inconvenient, appropriate or inappropriate.”
Instead, it continued, it is up to the Court to “affirm what is constitutional or unconstitutional, legal or illegal.” He also defended in the initial demonstration that magistrates must have “firmness to condemn when being sure and humility to acquit when there is doubt.”
According to Fux, the court’s mission “requires objectivity, technical rigor and interpretative minimalism”, as a way to avoid the confusion between the judge’s role with that of the politician. One of the main criticism of Moraes is to pack its decisions and votes with marked political contours.
Luiz Fux is the third to vote for criminal action. To date, there are the positions of Moraes and Flávio Dino for the convictions of the eight defendants of the Central Core of the case, in particular.
Already entering the merits of the case, Fux defused the incompetence of the case to judge the case as there are no people who have a special forum in the court.
“We are not judging people with forum prerogative, we are judging people who have no prerogative of forum,” said Fux. Of the defendants, the only one with forum is Alexandre Ramagem, who is federal deputy.
“I conclude by the absolute incompetence of the Supreme Court in this process, since the accused had already lost their positions. The nullity of all the procedural acts practiced is imposed,” he said.
This position has been defended by Fux in cases of January 8 since 2023. His vote is often isolated.
Shortly thereafter, Fux embraced two of the defendants’ main theses, the procedural obstacles to the defense’s work and the need for a case of this dimension to be analyzed by all 11 court ministers, not just the 5 members of the 1st class.
According to Fux, the Supreme Court is silenced the voices of ministers. “It is a curious fact: the Federal Constitution – the reason for the diminished number, we are 11 ministers – it does not refer to classes, it refers to the plenary,” he said.
“The fact that related processes were tried in the plenary imposes the displacement of this achievement to the larger plenary of the court,” says Fux. The quote deals, for example, the judgment of defendants of the January 8th. At the time of the first trials on the case, criminal actions were judged in the court plenary.
Regarding the difficulty presented by the defenses, the minister said that he himself had many problems by elaborating his vote and compared the time of the trial of the coup plot with that of the monthly to say that there is violation of the broad defenses in the speed imprinted by Alexandre de Moraes.
“I have been in the Federal Supreme Court for 14 years, I judged complex lawsuits such as the monthly. The process took two years to receive the complaint and five years to be judged. (…) I will have false modesty, Minister Alexandre, that I tried to analyze every detail of his work, a very dense work, and understand that, even for me, having this vote was a reason for extreme difficulty.”
Because of this, it voted for the total nullity of the process, claiming that the pace of the process curtailed the work of lawyers, and highlighted the accumulation of about 70 terabytes of data, between documents and evidence. “I confess that I had difficulty elaborating a huge vote.”
Despite criticism prior to Mauro Cid’s denunciation, the central point of the trial, Fux expressed the first agreement with Moraes and Dino voting for the validity of Bolsonaro’s former defendant.
