> Our views from democracy and the current state of things is very different I don't know how to reconcile them.
I don't know either. This is often my experience trying to discuss this.
For what its worth I will read your blog and try to better understand your position.
> You don't just bully yourself into power when there is a crisis, however long it is.
Who are we supposed to turn to when the Surpeme Court grants itself limitless powers? Gives itself the right to be the victim, investigator, prosecutor and judge? Starts creatively interpreting and selectively applying the constitution of the nation? Basically doing whatever they want, backed by the fact their pens move armed police forces?
It's the supreme court. There is no higher court you can appeal to. Is there anyone you can turn to?
Anyone other than the military? Which is actually listed as the "moderating power" that's meant to intervene in exactly such extreme situations?
I don't have a good answer to that. No one has has ever been able to give me the answer either. That's why I don't fault those folks for asking for military intervention.
I don't believe there is a democratic solution to this because the supreme court is not actually a democratic institution to begin with. They are not elected by us, they are appointed by our representatives. Once in the supreme court, their mandates are lifetime. Short of suffering impeachment by the other politicians, they're basically untouchable. There is a 100% chance that the politicians who can impeach them are hopelessly corrupt though, I seriously doubt they're gonna screw around with judges who can put them in the ground.
> I don't have a good answer to that. No one has has ever been able to give me the answer either. That's why I don't fault those folks for asking for military intervention.
If we had went through all the due process for debating and processing these issues in the public sphere I would tend to agree. Or if it reached such catastrophic outcomes as we have seen in other countries.
However we went from a mostly systemically dysfunctional government, which is very common, to having fear and despair unilaterally incited by Bolsonaro. When he blames all the issues on communism and the workers party, incite people to kill the opposition, which some supporters took to the extreme of actually gunning down people celebrating the election, spend the entire time in power questioning the election system without actually improving it, we skip the entire democratic process without giving it a chance to work.
Yes, the workers party spent almost four mandates and nothing changed. But brazillian democracy itself is quite young, it's not even 40 years old. Things take a while to get better, and we already see our democratic institutions get better over time.
After saying all that I kind of agree that these folks asking for military intervention aren't all at fault. I think they are victims of a strategy of fear Bolsonaro used to gain power. However, I don't think that movement is legitimate and I think if not for the judicial system we might have had way worse problems to worry about than Moraes having talked to two assessors when investigating rioters, or having Moraes close down X for not complying with sovereign country laws. We might even see investigations against de Moraes, just as we have seen against Moro. We have precedence for this.
There's one thing about Bolsonaro that can't be denied: he made people proud to be brazilian again. After decades of subversive worker's party nonsense, it was a breath of fresh air. What you call fear and despair is happiness and hope for many if not most.
But in general I don't disagree with you. Bolsonaro is a moron and it's pretty sad that he was the brazilian right's most viable candidate. His mandate had good points but was also full of completely unnecessary controversy. He was obssessed with saying insulting and outrageous things for the sake of it. He actually could have won if he had simply kept his mouth shut.
> spend the entire time in power questioning the election system without actually improving it
He's not at fault for that. He tried. He's always advocated for the paper trail. Our congress tried too, multiple times. The supreme court wouldn't let them improve the system. They declared the paper trail unconstitutional.
Had the paper trail system been implemented, there would have been zero reasons to question or doubt the election results.
But we just can't have nice things. The judge-king declared that the machines are INQUESTIONABLE!! And started censoring and fining anyone who questioned anything. It's just pathetic. The judge and his obstruction is a major reason why things got to the point they did. He didn't just obstruct progress, he doubled down on his nonsense and started getting arbitrary with the punishments, fines and censorship. It's all "fake news" to him.
I am completely opposed ideologically to the current system but I don't think they're the real problem. The problem is these judges.
Have you ever heard the saying? "Doctors think they're gods, judges know it". Brazil will not be fixed until those words are gone.
> We might even see investigations against de Moraes, just as we have seen against Moro. We have precedence for this.
I don't know either. This is often my experience trying to discuss this.
For what its worth I will read your blog and try to better understand your position.
> You don't just bully yourself into power when there is a crisis, however long it is.
Who are we supposed to turn to when the Surpeme Court grants itself limitless powers? Gives itself the right to be the victim, investigator, prosecutor and judge? Starts creatively interpreting and selectively applying the constitution of the nation? Basically doing whatever they want, backed by the fact their pens move armed police forces?
It's the supreme court. There is no higher court you can appeal to. Is there anyone you can turn to?
Anyone other than the military? Which is actually listed as the "moderating power" that's meant to intervene in exactly such extreme situations?
I don't have a good answer to that. No one has has ever been able to give me the answer either. That's why I don't fault those folks for asking for military intervention.
I don't believe there is a democratic solution to this because the supreme court is not actually a democratic institution to begin with. They are not elected by us, they are appointed by our representatives. Once in the supreme court, their mandates are lifetime. Short of suffering impeachment by the other politicians, they're basically untouchable. There is a 100% chance that the politicians who can impeach them are hopelessly corrupt though, I seriously doubt they're gonna screw around with judges who can put them in the ground.