There are ministers of the Federal Supreme Court who are deeply uncomfortable, I would even say very irritated and feel unfair with the taking of the parts for the whole in the description that has been made of the damage to the image that affects the court.
They claim the need to make a distinction between conduct and demand the application of the criterion of the existence of 11 () supreme, islands of independent action, instead of looking at the court from a single perspective and thereby disqualifying the institution.
A claim, in theory, fair. In all areas there is chaff and wheat, but so that the bad do not contaminate the reputation of the good, they need to differentiate themselves from the good in an explicit way. That’s not what has happened in .
The reputation crisis is faced reactively. The esprit de corps speaks loudest, the protection of peers as if this guaranteed — when in fact it harms — the correct defense of the group.
There are several examples, but let’s focus on two of the most recent: the calls from ministers and the liquidated person.
In the first case, we knew that and were favorable; Moraes and , opposite. And the others? Not a word was heard from them and, from the silence that took over the topic, it is clear that the court preferred not to deal with rules of conduct. Account to be paid by the board.
In the second, we see a mix of omission and shielding in the face of the suspicions that fall on ministers Moraes and Toffoli. Both continue to believe they have the right not to give explanations, counting on the complacency of colleagues who see no reason for suspicion. There is no need to repair even clearly questionable procedural tricks.
It is not expected that ministers will denounce each other, but if they consider it correct to continue supporting certain behaviors without at least signaling a high point, they cannot complain about sharing the loss.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
