6 ms·

The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it. Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censo

The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it. Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censored in the headquarters of the Supreme Court? Are people who criticize the actions of an out of control judge within the premises of the Supreme Court? Has Elon Musk ever been in the Brazilian Supreme Court? The Brazilian Supreme Court maintains that the whole internet is within their premises. Be honest, do you think this is reasonable?

vitorgrs 2y ago
The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as a attack to the court. That the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
- andrenth 2y ago
  > The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court. What the heck is a “virtual attack”? Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service. Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law. In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.
  - vitorgrs 2y ago
    It's the Supreme Court that gives interpretation to Constitution, you that right?
    - andrenth 2y ago
      Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.

vitorgrs 2y ago

The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as a attack to the court. That the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.

andrenth 2y ago
> The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court. What the heck is a “virtual attack”? Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet. Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service. Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy? > The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law. In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.
- vitorgrs 2y ago
  It's the Supreme Court that gives interpretation to Constitution, you that right?
  - andrenth 2y ago
    Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.