Brazzil

What's new ??

Although we might disagree on the 'rule of law' clearly, the judiciary needs to be bound by law and judicial precedent.

Who needs an legislative body if the judiciary does not consider itself bound by it. The comparison between the vigilante and the judiciary makes this especially clear. If 'the people' thougt along the same lines of the judiciary, 'the people' would need neither the judiciary, executive or legislature, and th author would be teaching anarchy.

- Then why legislators pass laws if judges could go over these laws...legally ?
Time and money is just thrown away.

- If effectively, 83 % of the judges decide their judgments based on social transformation, why is impunity decided by these judges to corrupted politicians, killings by large landowners and killings of innocents by the police ?
Their decisions are in total contradiction with what they pretend to do.

Brazilian politicians do exactly the same. They say one thing but do the opposite.



Words are words,promises are just promises not commitments and facts are facts.

"Thus, judges who embrace the idea are less concerned about legal interpretation than they are about deconstruction of the legal system, a system they regard as being merely an instrument for domination by the economic elites."

C&A modas was ordered to pay a shopper R$ 2000 in damages by the STJ. The shopper had paid for her goods but, upon leaving the store, the alarm sounded. The cashiers had forgotten to remove one of those magnets from one of the items. To me this seems an hones mistake. According to the STJ, C&A infringed Art 6 par VI of the 'codigo de consumidor' becaus the alarm caused embaressement to the shopper.

According to art 6-VI of that law it is a basic right of the consumer to be prevented against and be repaired for material and moral damage.

By extending the interpretation of this 'basic right' in such a manner, the STJ is opening the door to many silly lawsuits.

The TJ of the state of Rio had a much more sensible interpretation. Accoring to the TJ, the erroneous sounding of the alarm did not do any moral damage to the shopper since the problem had been quickly and adequately resolved.

By simply looking at the law itself, the interpretation of the STJ seems very questionable. Was it really the intention of the legislator to consider the erroneous sounding of the alarm as an act causing moral damage? Probably not since in the rest of the law text the legislature specifies many cases in which a consumer might be entitled to damages.

...that is where your problems will start, as judges in the past and presently dont make decisions based on the laws.

Using judicial precedent will just comfort them for the continuation of what they have been doing so far....wrongly as per the laws issued by lawmakers...but legally as per the rights they have been given...by the same lawmakers !

Quite a big mess !


No fair solutions will come out during the next 50 years.

Your lawmakers found, already centuries ago, that by being unclear, this will give them far more power and money than being clear. They can even find a law that will exempt them from punishment, when they are found guilty of an illegal activity, such as corruption, tax evasion or even killings.

As one said : the more laws are unclear and contradictory, the least you can apply them...when you are guilty yourself of illegal activities !!!!!!
With some additional money AND promises of favors in the future.....ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM...IN BRAZIL.

Why do you then expect that both your lawmakers and judges have an interest in changing something ??????