The Distinct Role of the Brazilian Supreme Court

For the past 20 years, the Brazilian Supreme Court has become one of the most influential political players in the nation. In the name of democracy and the fight against misinformation, the Court has authorized a flurry of arrests and media bans that have garnered international attention. But Brazil is not alone. It belongs to a long list of nascent democracies around the world that are struggling to contend with ever-expanding judicial power. Using Brazil as our model, the question before us remains: how and why has this power arisen and what does it mean for the future of democracy?

__________
The opinions expressed on this channel are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.

© 2024 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University.

🔔 Subscribe for more discussions: @HooverInstitution
👍 Like and share this video!

[luisfernandoalves]

The Supreme Court of Brazil has, regrettably, become a target of derision among serious legal scholars and constitutional experts. Once a respected institution, it has devolved into a politicized entity, advancing its own interests and agendas at the expense of fundamental constitutional principles and federal law. The Court now frequently exhibits a troubling lack of judicial restraint and prudence. By exploiting legal technicalities and issuing arbitrary, voluntarist decisions, it often undermines the very principles that uphold democratic governance. Judicial certainty has eroded, and the quality of the Court’s rulings has markedly declined since the early 2000s. While Brazil’s legal framework has improved significantly over the past few decades, the caliber of the judiciary has deteriorated. Those with a nuanced understanding of the law recognize this decline. In contrast to the intellectual giants who once presided over the Court until the late 1990s, today it is largely populated by political opportunists more interested in electoral interference and lawfare than in upholding justice.

Regarding the justice in question, although he may be one of the more competent members of the current Court—a faint praise, given the general mediocrity—his statements should be approached with skepticism. His evident biases and conflicts of interest often skew his narrative, leaving his interpretation of events incomplete and unreliable.

[CarolP]

Barroso is a great speaker and defends suppression of speech in a very smart way. Even though at 50:25 he said “exceptional times are over” concerning hate/dangerous speech persecution, he just recently upheld its continuance and since his buddy does not do follow up questions, that was never brought up…

[tiagoern]

@52min tell us please what is a proper mix of believes, dont forget to implement your right decision to the whole population

[tiagoern]

1:06-08min retoric, see it is normal not representing the people, always calling oponents facists and intolerants.