Government supporters and opponents point out that the PT government’s decision to nominate a vacancy for the (Supreme Federal Court) was influenced by the electoral dispute, Bolsonarism, the crisis between the PT and the court and, also, the estrangement between the PT member and the president of the Senate, (-AP). The actions of court ministers contrary to the Union’s attorney general also entered the account.
Government organizers were taken by surprise this Wednesday (29) with the score of just 34 votes in favor, which. Internally, government officials admit that the Palácio do Planalto failed to detect this movement earlier.
Senators aligned with Lula, however, attribute most of the defeat to Alcolumbre’s actions. Since Lula chose Messias instead of the senator (PSB-MG), the president of the House started working against the nominee.
In recent days, Alcolumbre, who influences a large part of the votes in the Senate, began telling interlocutors that he maintained a neutral position, that is, he would not ask Messias for votes, but he would not harm him either.
At least two senators reported Messias to the report, which he denied. The government base is suspicious of this action, but claims that even neutrality was, in practice, a contrary position.
Allies of the senator from Amapá claim that he intended to send the message that he controls the Senate and that Lula needs to consult him regarding matters sent to the House. Alcolumbre would have reversed around five votes in favor of Messias.
The choice of Messias, in November, caused a break between Alcolumbre and Lula, a situation that was being reversed slowly. At this point, government members criticize the PT member and see arrogance in his decision to maintain the appointment of the Union’s attorney general without notifying the head of the Legislature and even with the opposite signal from the majority of the House, which also endorsed Pacheco.
Furthermore, senators from the base state, with reservations, that Lula should have removed Jaques Wagner (PT-BA) from the government leadership and chosen a name close to Alcolumbre, or at least with the possibility of dialogue with the president of the House. Amid the crisis between Planalto and Senado, Alcolumbre and Wagner had also stopped speaking to each other.
Another wing of the government base understands that the change in the Institutional Relations Secretariat disrupted the process. There were five months of coordination between the choice of Messias and the vote, but senators believe that José Guimarães (PT), Planalto’s new political coordinator, did not have enough time to campaign in the Senate corridors for Messias.
Some of the government supporters also attribute responsibility for Messias’ defeat to Rodrigo Pacheco. The senators’ assessment is that the former president of the Senate, despite having shown signs of resignation with the AGU’s nomination, did not actually move to change the votes of his colleagues. He is tipped to run for the Government of Minas Gerais with the support of Lula.
On another front, there was the participation of Bolsonarism, in a double clash against Lula and against STF ministers. The conservative right in the Senate closed the issue against the PT nominee, even though he was evangelical, under the argument that his positions were aligned with the PT.
During the hearing, for example, Messias was asked about the stance of the Attorney General’s Office in relation to the January 8th attacks, which was considered disproportionate.
There were complaints from allies about the government’s lack of attention to the campaign against Messias on social media. According to them, the right wing took over the agenda, attacking the AGU’s positions on abortion and related issues.
Opposition to Lula in the Senate was led by his main opponent in the election, senator (-RJ). Contamination in the electoral scenario weighed on Wednesday’s result, according to parliamentarians from different parties. Even among Bolsonarists, there was surprise at the size of the defeat — which affects the STF and Lula equally, in their assessment.
Senators Rogério Marinho (PL-RN) and Sergio Moro (PL-PR) argue that the position remains vacant until next year.
Furthermore, right-wing senators saw Messias’ rejection as an opportunity to respond to the growing dissatisfaction with the STF, as requests for the impeachment of ministers and the opening of a CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry) to investigate those involved in the Master case are blocked by Alcolumbre.
For Bolsonarists, the vote served as a thermometer and indicates that impeachment of court ministers could be approved in the House.
Another factor that weighed in, still according to right-wing senators, was the recent move by STF ministers into new investigations against Flávio and the senator (MDB-SE).
Vieira became the target of an investigation request by Gilmar Mendes after defending, in the final report of the Organized Crime CPI, the indictment of Dias Toffoli for involvement in the Master scandal. The report ended up rejected by the commission.
The senators’ understanding was that the court’s reaction against Vieira was disproportionate and that the ministers were out of control. The senator, however, stated during the hearing that he would vote in favor of Messiah.
The nominee had support from STF ministers, such as André Mendonça, Gilmar Mendes and Cristiano Zanin. On the other hand, members of the government saw a contrary statement from Moraes, which would also have influenced the defeat in the final stretch.
At the STF, the bad relationship between Flávio Dino and Messias was remembered as another cause of the defeat, but the minister’s allies deny that he had any role.
During the hearing, Messias gave indications contrary to Moraes when defending, for example, that investigations must come to an end when he was questioned about the fake news investigation conducted by the minister since 2019 and used to target political enemies.
The nominee also preached self-restraint by the Judiciary and criticized judicial activism. Still during the hearing, he defended the code of ethics proposed by Edson Fachin, but which faced resistance in court.
