Toffoli, Zanin, Dino. The line of nominations based on the expectation of personal loyalty stopped at Messiah. After the deserved defeat, he examines two wrong options. There is, however, a third, which would serve Brazil.
Mistake 1: giving up, until the elections, nominating a name. It’s the “Alcolumbre option”. It would mean evading presidential duty, giving up an Executive prerogative and condemning the STF to the risk of draws. Depending on the electoral result, it would involve giving up a seat on the court to Bolsonarism.
Mistake 2: indicating a “black woman”, that is, in practice, an activist of the identity movement. Bar radicalism would convey the message that the STF should function as a stage for sterile cultural wars. It is the option of the postmodern left that invests in symbolic confrontations with echoes confined to a derisory bubble of the electorate.
The third option is to change the game: appoint a jurist, man or woman, white, black or dark, possessing the “notorious legal knowledge” required by the Constitution. And with one more quality: someone capable of arguing, in the STF, for respect for the separation of Powers. In short: an anti-activist jurist.
Libertarian politicians pose threats to society and the environment. Libertarian judges, on the other hand, counterbalance the tyrannical inclinations of state power. Neil Gorsuch, the most libertarian of the US Supreme Court justices, sounded an alarm about judicial activism: “I think it would be crazy to say that we are a democracy or a republic and simultaneously embrace the notion that nine old judges in Washington should govern us all.” These nine exist to “independently decide the meaning of the law”, but never to “pass laws” or “amend the Constitution”.
It’s worth it there, it’s worth it here. The sound of a microphone or the light of a camera triggers, among ministers of our Supreme Court, the irresistible impulse to deliver impassioned speeches. Increasingly politicized, the court adopted the habit of invading the legislative and executive spheres, producing rules with the force of law, dictating rules on the functioning of CPIs and even issuing operational orders to the PF.
Activism is based on the belief that “government by philosophers” is preferable to representative government. Enlightened judges would fulfill, in the words of the former minister, a “civilizing” function, imposing progressive policies on the ignorant mass of voters and their corrupt representatives. The appointment of an anti-activist judge would provide pause for reflection.
Barroso’s elitist and authoritarian beliefs are also counterproductive. Gorsuch, referring to liberals, as progressives are called in the USA: “American liberals have fallen into the vice of the courts, relying on judges and lawyers instead of elected leaders and the popular vote to advance their social agenda” – and, therefore, “fail to spread their message and persuade the public”.
The STF’s activism reached the point of frightening Fachin, a judge with an activist background who, today, preaches the court’s “self-restraint”. The appointment of an anti-activist judge would help to define the functions of the STF and alert the left to the importance of “persuading the public”. Lula would act like a statesman, cornering Alcolumbre. Unfortunately, it won’t happen.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
