is about to appoint its 11th minister to the . The nominee will not deviate from the homogeneity standard of the ten previous nominations.
Over three terms, he appointed nine men and one woman. Among the men, a black man. Little varied trajectories and origins. Of the ten, six are no longer there: Peluso (for 9 years), Ayres Britto (9 years), Barbosa (11 years), Grau (6 years), Lewandowski (17 years) and Menezes Direito (2 years). Four are there: Cármen Lúcia (19 years ago), Dias Toffoli (16 years ago), Zanin (2 years ago) and Dino (a year and a half ago).
The movement for diversity in the STF has not yet discovered the path to Lula’s heart. No way to penetrate his male circle of political-legal loyalties. This tight circle works for full-time appointments, not just when a chair arises. Do not underestimate the difficulty of competing with the magistocratic centrist establishment and its power and income hunting technology.
The argument for diversity is inspired by the idea of representation. Not electoral representation, a key instrument of democratic mediation, through which we vote for a candidate and identify him as a representative of interests, but symbolic representation of a diverse and unequal society. Not for aesthetic appreciation, but for gains in competence and legitimacy. Not a prettier court, but a better court.
The argument for racial and regional, intellectual and gender diversity does not dispense with competence and integrity, “notorious legal knowledge” and “unblemished reputation”. It just proposes one more criterion to break the tie.
And he asks the public sphere not to normalize the fact that even a STF minister can say, without consequence, that “the Court needs courageous and legally prepared people, Senator Pacheco is our candidate, .” An unseemly message that explodes the degradation rate of the court appointment process.
Those who exercise the right to defend all of Lula’s judicial appointments are only asked to avoid arguments below the line of intelligence, honesty and decorum.
There are many examples. Like those who, to confuse the discussion, say the obvious that no one has ever disagreed with: “Lula has the prerogative to make the appointment and choose whoever he wants”; “The STF needs competent people who defend the Constitution and human rights.”
Or those who resort to nonsense: “Black person? And Joaquim Barbosa in the Mensalão? Woman? And Rosa Weber in Lava Jato?” “Why didn’t you charge Bolsonaro?”
Or the arguments that, taken to the limit, would justify the end of women’s suffrage: “Women already benefit from Lula’s policies.” Finally, the empirically false arguments: “Lula has already appointed many women to the courts.”
There are three arguments worthy of debate: “diversity does not matter”, “political pragmatism requires it”, “the nominee’s competence and integrity are unparalleled in the president’s assessment”. They require more work, as they require explaining and supporting the irrelevance of diversity, the sensor of pragmatism in the current situation, the notions of competence and integrity above any alternative.
None of this is trivial. Even less so in a political era in which supreme courts have become a primary target for extremism.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
