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.
> 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?
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/decisoe...
They can't possibly read the cases, is this a kangaroo court?
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.
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.
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.
Doesn't change the fact that these are not decisons being hammered down on a whim by dictators that "didn't read" them
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.
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.
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.
The most infamous case is the gigantic "fake news inquiry", which is still going:
https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/inquerito-das-fake-news-...
Btw, there's "assistant judges" to help each of the 11 Justices here. The Justice is able to pick 3 of his choice.
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