Since 1988, the profile that predominates in the (Supreme Federal Court) is that of a man whose career combines holding positions in legal bodies with proximity to power. And nothing indicates that the person chosen by the president () to replace him will deviate from this standard.
A says that the STF is made up of 11 ministers, all native Brazilians, chosen from citizens over 35 and under 70. The candidate must demonstrate a good reputation and knowledge of the law. The appointment is up to the President of the Republic and depends on majority approval in the .
An x-ray reveals the presence of other markers common to Supreme Court ministers: the court has historically had a majority of male members, white, born in the Southeast, graduated from colleges in the region, with some public experience.
In the case of religion, historical information is not available on the court portal.
Professor Fernando Fontainha, from the Institute of Social and Political Studies at Uerj (State University of Rio de Janeiro), is the organizer of a book that aimed to analyze the characteristics of the STF ministers from 1988 to 2013 using the collective biography method, in order to focus on different aspects of their trajectories.
The conclusion was that there were three main qualities in court ministers: instrumentality, “Brazilianness” and subalternity. The first is manifested in the occupation of positions in courts, class associations and commissions in the (Brazilian Bar Association), in a strategic way, aimed at one’s own advancement.
The second deals with . Although the majority of ministers were not natives of Brazil, around two-thirds already lived in Brasília at the time of their appointment.
Subalternity, in turn, appears in the trajectory of those who previously held positions in ministries, secretariats, courts or positions that depend on political appointment — often from the Executive.
According to Fontainha, it is a mistake to think of the choice of STF minister as a very personal decision by the president. For him, the nomination involves a network of actors and influences, which includes the media, the legal community and the ministers themselves.
Barroso’s vacancy renewed the , preferably black. The court currently has only one minister in its composition, . A black woman has never sat on the Supreme Court bench.
Lula, despite this, has already told allies that he intends to nominate the head of the (Advocacy General of the Union), , . Also among the names considered for the position were the minister of the (Federal Audit Court) Bruno Dantas and the former president of the Senate (-MG).
The president of the Senate, (-AP), before indicating his favorite name for the court. The senator is the main articulator in favor of Pacheco for the seat left by Barroso.
“The more important the court becomes, the more protagonist it is, the more fundamental it is to occupy a seat, with a representative of its interests there”, says , columnist for Sheet and professor of constitutional law at USP.
Since 1891, 171 ministers have been appointed, including only three women. The state of São Paulo has the largest number of magistrates (33), followed by (30) and (27). The Faculty of Law, in the center of São Paulo, leads among the original institutions: 55 passed through its rooms.
The characteristics — of a white man, from the Rio-São Paulo axis, with a legal reputation, but not necessarily an academic one, and close to the president’s political circle — were maintained over time, says Hübner Mendes.
Despite this, in recent years the nomination began to reflect what the professor called the “termiteization” of positions in Brasília, an intensification of the process of dispute over the occupation of spaces of power, especially at a time when the STF acquires more centrality in the discussions.
“In the last 15 years, with the degradation of forms of coalition building, even a court has become part of the position negotiations.”
For Insper professor Diego Werneck, the criteria of political proximity and legal credentials appeared in nominations to the STF to varying degrees depending on the historical moment. But, according to him, the choices have become increasingly personal, focusing more on who is the president than who is the nominee.
Werneck considers that there was a historical peak related to professional recognition in government, with names that could have been nominated by other politicians, but the pattern observed in subsequent years is not the historical rule. “What is happening now is a radicalization for the other [lado].”
He also considers the involvement of ministers in disputes to be worrying. “In general, it seems to me very close to the day-to-day political dispute (…), as if it were an absolutely normal thing. I don’t think that’s inevitable and I think it’s bad.”
