Ministers of the (Federal Supreme Court) assessed it as signaling both an error on the part of the president (PT) in articulating the chosen name and dissatisfaction with the court.
The outcome was also seen as a sign that the position of minister of the court is gaining strength, especially if the right emerges victorious at the polls in this year’s elections.
Throughout the day, at least three spoke to opposition senators to ask for support. In these calls, even with PL parliamentarians, the most staunch opposition to the nomination, the expectation was of timid approval.
The reading made by at least four magistrates heard subject to reservation by the Sheet also involved surprise with the result. For these members, what was expected was a narrow victory for the Union’s attorney general. Finally, there were 7 votes left for Messias to reach a seat in the Supreme Court.
In the Senate plenary vote, there were 42 votes against Messiah and 34 in favor — 41 were needed for him to be approved. In the case of impeachment of STF ministers, 54 votes are needed in the House.
Publicly, the minister, who acted in favor of Messiah, was the first to speak out after the vote. “I respect the Senate’s decision, but I cannot help but express my opinion. Brazil is losing the opportunity to have a great Supreme Court minister,” he wrote. “Messiah is a man of character, integrity and who meets the constitutional requirements to be a minister of the STF.”
Mendonça was the Union’s attorney general and is also an evangelical, like Messiah. “A true friend is not present at parties; he is present in difficult moments. Messiah, leave this battle with your head held high. You fought the good fight! God bless you! God bless our Brazil!”
The president of the STF, , later said he respected the constitutional prerogative of the Senate and, without mentioning Messias’ name, stated that he reiterated “respect for the personal and institutional history of all public agents involved in the process, recognizing that republican life is strengthened when disagreements are treated with elegance, urbanity and public responsibility”.
The Supreme Court, according to Fachin, “awaits, with serenity and a sense of institutional responsibility, the appropriate constitutional measures for the timely filling of the open vacancy.”
According to STF ministers, while Lula failed to act and acted only through intermediaries, the president of the Senate, (-AP), committed himself in the opposite direction. He acted directly for the desired result, expressing resistance to Messiah and preference for (PSB-MG).
A magistrate says Lula left Messias to his own devices. Another, more directly, understood it to have been a defeat for the government. For this, the time is still for Fachin to resume efforts to unite the court.
In the context of the strained relations between the Powers, the behind-the-scenes assessment is that the senators’ discontent with the Supreme Court has grown in recent days, after the episode between the senator and the senator. With this result, the Senate would have shown the spirit of corps to take part in the institutional dispute.
The dean of the court asked the (Attorney General’s Office) to investigate the parliamentarian for the crime of abuse of authority, due to the distortion of the scope of the CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry) on Organized Crime.
In the final report of the CPI, Vieira de Gilmar and the ministers and for a crime of responsibility, due to alleged links with the case of , which the magistrates deny.
There is also an assessment that the “scoldings” that Gilmar recently gave to senators who are part of CPIs helped to sour the climate between the Senate and the Supreme Court and reduced the dean’s ability to sensitize senators in favor of Messias.
When voting against the extension of the INSS mixed CPI, on March 26, Gilmar said that the leaks of former banker Daniel Vorcaro’s private conversations were “abominable”, “criminal” and incompatible with what is required of senators of the Republic.
Ministers also assess that the power of influence of the magistrates who acted in favor of Messias —, , Gilmar Mendes and — proved to be lower than initially expected.
A magistrate told an interlocutor that it was worrying that Mendonça was the rapporteur of two of the most controversial cases in politics (the INSS and Banco Master) and yet he was unable to turn in enough votes among opposition senators.
