The decided that breaking is not exactly constitutional, but, if you want to break a little, you can. It established that some extra funds (such as daily allowances) and additional seniority payments cannot exceed 35% of the ceiling value. Thus, the ceiling of R$46 thousand created an excess of R$78 thousand. Now for real.
said there were “several values involved”, such as the “independence of the Judiciary”, which requires “adequate guarantees”; invoked Sartori’s “constitutional engineering”; mentioned the “thinking of possibilities”, or the “need to remove extravagant content from the legal system, but at the same time create a theory of constitutional approximation”, echoing Peter Häberle.
And he concluded with the fable of the nature reformer, by Monteiro Lobato: you cannot put jabuticabas next to pumpkins. He admitted that “we did our best”. It wasn’t exactly boxer Joe Louis’ phrase of courage (“I did the best with what I had”), but of embarrassed capitulation.
All to forge a syllogism: judges illegally blow up the ceiling (major premise); judges will not accept it if we apply the law in this “complex” case (minor premise); Let’s limit it just a little because we can’t do any more (conclusion). Weakness disguised as prudence. Blackmail from the corporation became the imposition of reality against legality.
When Gilmar Mendes practices legal heterodoxy, he usually quotes in German. And he sometimes invokes a phrase from his friend Peter Häberle, whom he considers “one of the great names in the history of constitutionalism”. Hyperbole is common in our times, but it has been common in legal parole for much longer.
The problem is not Häberle. The evil thing is to do this to the admired author of German constitutional law. Bachelor culture borrows phrases not for the idea, but for the slogan. Not because of conceptual precision, but because of a foreign sound. The rhetorical prop attempts to hypnotize the audience and change the subject. Word that replaces reasoning, saves argument and intimidates the audience.
The corporate movement to reject the ceiling is not only iniquitous and dishonest, but illegal. Not only unfair, but unconstitutional. It does not inhabit the realm of obedience to the law, only that of arbitrariness and disobedience. It’s not an anti-republican method, it’s kidnapping. It does not demand better based on principle, but on the ransom price.
The highest paid profession of Justice in all democracies in the world threatens strike. The exploited worker’s right to protest is used by the class that exploits legality. There was another magistocrat protesting against his salary being worse than that of an “ice cream seller”, another saying that this will
With declared good intentions and committed misdeeds, the brioche-hungry corporation is fleecing the Republic. It remains to expand the vocabulary to do descriptive justice to the remuneration debacle: occupation, illicit enrichment, misappropriation, expropriation, land grabbing, extractivism, patrimonialism, institutional corruption.
And we continue to postpone urgent debates about justice: fair remuneration, inclusion, the challenges of institutionalization with competent people and secure infrastructure at the country’s borders, instruments of control, transparency, impartiality and legal security.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
