7 ms·

The judiciary system in Brazil is a little different than the US one. It does not make Brazil a dictatorship as many of Bolsonaro's supporters claim, nor does a

The judiciary system in Brazil is a little different than the US one. It does not make Brazil a dictatorship as many of Bolsonaro's supporters claim, nor does an article in NYTimes.

mike_hearn 2y ago
How can that be so? The article says this: > In Brazil, the 11 justices and the attorneys who work for them issued 505,000 rulings over the past five years. Can that really be right? That's an average of 276 rulings per day, or one ruling every five minutes around the clock 24/7/365 for five years straight. If that claim is true then it's clear that the Brazilian Supreme Court is not like supreme courts anywhere else in the world. It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves. And, it must be a truly massive organization to create so many rulings on so many topics. Seeing as it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body), it would seem fair to describe that as a parallel government acting as a dictatorship. How else could you describe it? What checks on their power do they recognize?
- virgulino 2y ago
  > Can that really be right? That's an average of 276 rulings per day Yes. From the official website of the Supreme Court (STF - Supremo Tribunal Federal), real-time statistics: 65,173 rulings so far this year. https://transparencia.stf.jus.br/extensions/decisoes/decisoes.html https://transparencia.stf.jus.br/extensions/decisoes/decisoe...
  - fuzzbazz 2y ago
    65173 rulings in 230 days by 11 people. That's 25.76 rulings per person per day if we ignore holidays and weekends. They can't possibly read the cases, is this a kangaroo court?
    - speeder 2y ago
      Yes. For example, one time the federal police arrested a corrupt banker (Daniel Dantas). Somehow the Supreme Court was in session literally 4:00 am to immediately make a ruling that the banker should be released... Some of the current judges were literally lawyers of the current ruling party, there was even cases where they judged cases where they were themselves the lawyer in that case. I could mention more things but that is an invitation to get arrested.
    - gota 2y ago
      No. Each minister has ~40 judges - not counting other staffers, law clerks, specialists, chief of staff - under them It's standard, legal and completely expected for the Justice to dispose a general "guidance", delegate all the work and approve the sentencing based on minutes A lot of people posting here are clearly right-leaning Brazilian voters with a bone to pick.
      - virgulino 2y ago
        > Each minister has ~40 judges - not counting other staffers, law clerks, specialists, chief of staff - under them Not true. Each minister can pick only 3 assistant judges. There are only 38 assistant judges for the whole Supreme Court. From the Supreme Court's website. I combined auxiliary, instructor and substitute judges as assistant judges. https://egesp-portal.stf.jus.br/forca_trabalho https://egesp-portal.stf.jus.br/forca_trabalho
        gota 2y ago
        You are right. They are "law clerks" only, I thought there were many more judges. Doesn't change the fact that these are not decisons being hammered down on a whim by dictators that "didn't read" them
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  > It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves. It's right there in the text: > the 11 justices and the attorneys who work for them issued 505,000 rulings > it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body) That's not the case. The STF never accuses, they only judge. Accusations come from other institutions. The Supreme Court then orders investigations and act as judges. > What checks on their power do they recognize? Mostly the Parliament and the Senate, who can at any time pass new laws, including amendments to the Constitution.
  - usehand 2y ago
    > That's not the case. The STF never accuses, they only judge. Accusations come from other institutions. The Supreme Court then orders investigations and act as judges. That's not true for some of the cases referred here though. For matters that the court deems related to attacks on the Supreme Court or democracy, Moraes can act essentially as both prosecutor and judge. I'm not arguing if this is good or bad. Some people argue this is good, some that it is bad, but it is a fact.
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      Not doubting you, I could certainly have missed something. Do you have references to which cases those are? I ask because I haven’t heard of it. I have seen cases where arrests have been ordered pending investigation, but that’s a completely different matter.
      - virgulino 2y ago
        > Do you have references to which cases those are? The most infamous case is the gigantic "fake news inquiry", which is still going: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/inquerito-das-fake-news-beira-2-mil-dias-sem-conclusao-sob-sigilo-e-com-poder-concentrado-em-moraes/ https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/inquerito-das-fake-news-... https://archive.is/FerHx https://archive.is/FerHx
- vitorgrs 2y ago
  That's right, but that's because every judicial decision can go to Supreme Court. A random person got arrested because it stole a chicken? You can appeal up to Supreme Court. Btw, there's "assistant judges" to help each of the 11 Justices here. The Justice is able to pick 3 of his choice.
- gota 2y ago
  > It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves Correct. Each "Justice" is more like a full fledged law office. It's designed like that. > Seeing as it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body), it would seem fair to describe that as a parallel government acting as a dictatorship. How else could you describe it? I could describe it fairly. It's the top authority in a 3-branch government consisting of a council of many members with varied and often opposing views. Quite obviously different than a "parallel government" and dictatorship by definition But I'd be wasting my time arguing with you for your sake. You're not seriously asking in good faith. I'm replying for the benefit of other people who may see your misguided politicaly motivated concern trolling

The judiciary system in Brazil is a little different than the US one. It does not make Brazil a dictatorship as many of Bolsonaro's supporters claim, nor does an article in NYTimes.

mike_hearn 2y ago

How can that be so? The article says this: > In Brazil, the 11 justices and the attorneys who work for them issued 505,000 rulings over the past five years. Can that really be right? That's an average of 276 rulings per day, or one ruling every five minutes around the clock 24/7/365 for five years straight. If that claim is true then it's clear that the Brazilian Supreme Court is not like supreme courts anywhere else in the world. It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves. And, it must be a truly massive organization to create so many rulings on so many topics. Seeing as it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body), it would seem fair to describe that as a parallel government acting as a dictatorship. How else could you describe it? What checks on their power do they recognize?

virgulino 2y ago
> Can that really be right? That's an average of 276 rulings per day Yes. From the official website of the Supreme Court (STF - Supremo Tribunal Federal), real-time statistics: 65,173 rulings so far this year. https://transparencia.stf.jus.br/extensions/decisoes/decisoes.html https://transparencia.stf.jus.br/extensions/decisoes/decisoe...
- fuzzbazz 2y ago
  65173 rulings in 230 days by 11 people. That's 25.76 rulings per person per day if we ignore holidays and weekends. They can't possibly read the cases, is this a kangaroo court?
  - speeder 2y ago
    Yes. For example, one time the federal police arrested a corrupt banker (Daniel Dantas). Somehow the Supreme Court was in session literally 4:00 am to immediately make a ruling that the banker should be released... Some of the current judges were literally lawyers of the current ruling party, there was even cases where they judged cases where they were themselves the lawyer in that case. I could mention more things but that is an invitation to get arrested.
  - gota 2y ago
    No. Each minister has ~40 judges - not counting other staffers, law clerks, specialists, chief of staff - under them It's standard, legal and completely expected for the Justice to dispose a general "guidance", delegate all the work and approve the sentencing based on minutes A lot of people posting here are clearly right-leaning Brazilian voters with a bone to pick.
    - virgulino 2y ago
      > Each minister has ~40 judges - not counting other staffers, law clerks, specialists, chief of staff - under them Not true. Each minister can pick only 3 assistant judges. There are only 38 assistant judges for the whole Supreme Court. From the Supreme Court's website. I combined auxiliary, instructor and substitute judges as assistant judges. https://egesp-portal.stf.jus.br/forca_trabalho https://egesp-portal.stf.jus.br/forca_trabalho
      - gota 2y ago
        You are right. They are "law clerks" only, I thought there were many more judges. Doesn't change the fact that these are not decisons being hammered down on a whim by dictators that "didn't read" them
cassianoleal 2y ago
> It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves. It's right there in the text: > the 11 justices and the attorneys who work for them issued 505,000 rulings > it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body) That's not the case. The STF never accuses, they only judge. Accusations come from other institutions. The Supreme Court then orders investigations and act as judges. > What checks on their power do they recognize? Mostly the Parliament and the Senate, who can at any time pass new laws, including amendments to the Constitution.
- usehand 2y ago
  > That's not the case. The STF never accuses, they only judge. Accusations come from other institutions. The Supreme Court then orders investigations and act as judges. That's not true for some of the cases referred here though. For matters that the court deems related to attacks on the Supreme Court or democracy, Moraes can act essentially as both prosecutor and judge. I'm not arguing if this is good or bad. Some people argue this is good, some that it is bad, but it is a fact.
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    Not doubting you, I could certainly have missed something. Do you have references to which cases those are? I ask because I haven’t heard of it. I have seen cases where arrests have been ordered pending investigation, but that’s a completely different matter.
    - virgulino 2y ago
      > Do you have references to which cases those are? The most infamous case is the gigantic "fake news inquiry", which is still going: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/inquerito-das-fake-news-beira-2-mil-dias-sem-conclusao-sob-sigilo-e-com-poder-concentrado-em-moraes/ https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/inquerito-das-fake-news-... https://archive.is/FerHx https://archive.is/FerHx
vitorgrs 2y ago
That's right, but that's because every judicial decision can go to Supreme Court. A random person got arrested because it stole a chicken? You can appeal up to Supreme Court. Btw, there's "assistant judges" to help each of the 11 Justices here. The Justice is able to pick 3 of his choice.
gota 2y ago
> It must be normally issuing rulings written by people who aren't the justices themselves Correct. Each "Justice" is more like a full fledged law office. It's designed like that. > Seeing as it appears to answer to nobody, nor follow any normal judicial procedure (being both accuser and judge in one body), it would seem fair to describe that as a parallel government acting as a dictatorship. How else could you describe it? I could describe it fairly. It's the top authority in a 3-branch government consisting of a council of many members with varied and often opposing views. Quite obviously different than a "parallel government" and dictatorship by definition But I'd be wasting my time arguing with you for your sake. You're not seriously asking in good faith. I'm replying for the benefit of other people who may see your misguided politicaly motivated concern trolling