Ministers , , and , of the (Supreme Federal Court), formed a kind of alliance to face the agenda of the presidency of the court amid the negative repercussions of the investigation into .
The quartet has been working together to demand a more emphatic defense of Fachin from his colleagues, to try to implement agendas of great repercussion — such as restrictions on — and to oppose the initiatives of the President of the Supreme Court to deal with how the implementation of a .
The unity of this wing is based on Fachin’s way of acting, although the reasons for each one are different. Moraes has complained about the lack of public support, while Gilmar regrets that statements by the president of the STF, such as that “”, end up fueling the court’s vulnerability.
Dino already understands that the real ethical problems of the Judiciary are bypassing Fachin’s decisions, especially in the (National Council of Justice). The minister handed down decisions that would have forced the president to face certain issues, such as judges and the end of punishment for violating judges.
Averse to public events and , Zanin believes that Fachin’s ethical rules would have little impact on his daily life. Still, he is dissatisfied with the president’s handling of this issue. The reading is that insistence on the matter is exposing the court to criticism.
The groups that work in the court were reconfigured. The Moraes quartet is contrasted with another, formed by Fachin and the ministers, and, of conduct. The minister acts as a pendulum between the two nuclei.
The minister has not participated in the discussions of the group led by Moraes, although he is involved in the Master’s developments and also disagrees with Fachin’s stance at the head of the STF. Today, Toffoli is considered an isolated magistrate within the court.
Toffoli is suspicious that he or one of his assistants had the decision to archive a suspicion raised by the PF (Federal Police) in February. Toffoli of the conversations that took place on that occasion.
Moraes, Dino, Gilmar and Zanin understand that Fachin, as president, should make a public and unrestricted defense of the integrity of his ministers amid the criticism that accumulates in society about , , and the former banker, owner of Master.
The group’s perception is that Fachin appears not to believe the word of the judges who deny irregularities, which generates an internal fissure. There is also discomfort with the fact that the president of the STF defended what was fair in an election year, in which attacks tend to increase.
One of the four even suggested that Fachin make a statement on national radio and TV to dispel society’s perception that the court was under suspicion. The president of the STF did not like the idea. He understands that he cannot be hasty, as he does not know the content of what is being investigated.
While Vorcaro negotiates one that could affect court magistrates, Fachin has reiterated the importance of the code of conduct for ministers and made statements that show an intransigent president of the Supreme Court with possible ethical deviations.
Fachin told journalists that “anyone who acts in violation of an ethical rule needs to feel forced to rethink their behavior.” He stated at an event at the STF that judges must act with “”. He also spoke in a lecture that “there is no legitimacy” in the Judiciary.
The president of the STF tells assistants that he never stopped carrying out the institutional defense of the court and that disagreements are part of the routine of a collegiate body. Fachin also says he maintains periodic dialogue with all members of the court to map the main challenges, prepare the plenary agenda on an equal basis among rapporteurs and seek joint solutions to thorny issues, such as penduricalhos.
