Which biography, minister?

Andreia Sadi reports, and this 247 reproduces the statement of the Minister of Justice where he allegedly asserted that... He would tear up his biography to become a minister in the government....

Which biography, Minister? The one from your time as a judge? If so, we assert there is nothing left to salvage...

Let's take it one step at a time (as Jack would say), because we don't intend to offend anyone here; we're merely stating a few facts: Your Excellency was, until the day before yesterday, an excellency in the toga, not of the toga. There's a significant difference between the two situations. 

The first hypothesis (excellence in the robe) becomes clouded when the judge may wear the robe, but the robe does not wear the judge – to put it bluntly: The man did not reach the stature or grandeur that the robe demands, and this is almost always verified when the judge betrays the duty of distance from the parties...

Betraying the duty of impartiality translates to interfering in the evidentiary activity of the public prosecutor's office, as well as deviating from legal doctrine in favor of conviction or personal interests, persecuting political adversaries and protecting those who hold sway in that position...

The second premise (excellence of the robe) evokes a great magistrate who elevates the robe he wears. There are examples I like to highlight: Amilton Bueno de Carvalho, a retired judge of the TJRS (Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice), always elevated the robe he wore, being a reference for it and enhancing the magistracy – and for more than one reason that goes beyond the legal guarantees he practiced...

Adauto Suannes and Alberto Silva Franco – and we'll stop here, but not before mentioning Edson de Jesus Deliberador and Telmo Cherem (the latter still providing excellent legal services at the TJPR).

Your Excellency, Minister, has never distinguished the judicial robe except in his role as a political columnist – and that is the worst thing about wearing the robe...

In truth, Minister, there are those who should never approach the judicial robe (precisely so as not to encroach upon those under their jurisdiction under the shadow of their institutional protection) – and these are the political judges...

Political judges are the misery of our time, constituting a mix of schizophrenics and superheroes, as they blend essences without retaining any ownership, mitigating the viral disease they spread to the lives of those they judge, assuming that political concern should not even overshadow the delivery of justice – let alone guide it? 

Yes, guide her, or is there any rational justification for condemning a fellow human being for the practice of a indeterminate official actOr are the conversations revealed by The Intercept in an end-to-end encrypted messaging group justifiable in any other context than that of a criminal gang that didn't want to get caught?

We know it's almost a cliché of our time, but one of the great judges we've known already taught this: The process has no cover....

And it shouldn't have. 

Let's go further: A media process that prioritizes non-dogmatic interests should unveil the illusion of something just or of a just measure (it should be noted: we are not talking about justice). 

A trial judged by judges whose biographies they seek to salvage by emerging from totalitarian, militia-linked, misogynistic, homophobic governments—governments that they helped to establish at the expense of the jurisdiction they handed over—should not give the impression of balance, reason, or enlightenment, since they no longer uphold the Enlightenment model, except in safeguarding the... laissez-faire...or when those around them apologize...

We will be more incisive: The political judge resembles the prostitute – only in intention, ladies of war, since both seek a reason, however distinct, to offer their services; while the political judge seeks to safeguard those who are by his side (in (Onyx we trust?), the prostitute gives herself to whoever pays her, indiscriminately...

Frankly and honestly, a prostitute fulfills a far more relevant social role than a political judge. Furthermore, and with all due respect to prostitutes for equating them (and only in this comparison, ladies of war!) with political judges, there is nothing salvageable in Your biography as a judge, minister – if Your Excellency is, in fact, concerned about that...

Let's see this... 

Dogmatically speaking, Your conviction is based on the hypothesis of indeterminate official act It will haunt you, like a ghost of despair – which was the result of the equation of your political activity when, for example, you released the illegal wiretap on President Dilma's phone in time to generate an electoral dividend in the election that culminated in the election of your President (the same President whose government of majorities and weapons you were part of and are now strategically abandoning)...

Furthermore, the prostitution (pardon the tasteless pun) of the relationship with the Lava Jato task force, exposed in its entrails by The Intercept, does not recommend any biography of the judge – even if it paints an allusive picture of the performance of those in robes...

Furthermore, Minister, we will not leave you with the Bonfim measure (which the neo-Pentecostals surrounding you treat as something demonic), since it will be of no use to you. Nor will we take back any record, because what we listen to would not be to your liking... 

But let's keep remembering that the judge's robe never suited you, given that you were a judge who never prioritized impartiality in your judgments, since you were always on the side of whoever could open political doors for you (like the messiah you are now abandoning).

So, don't be ashamed or hypocritical: There's no biography to salvage; rather, there's a movement aimed at safeguarding the political dividend that enabled you to hand over a jurisdiction aligned with market interests.

Without biographical concerns, then, it is legitimate for you to intend to navigate political life (when haven't you done so?). Just do the toga a favor – forget about it in some corner. Detach yourself from it, for it never had the slightest attachment to you, since the purpose of the toga is infinitely greater than your political ambition. 

The truth is, politicians don't wear the toga; it's the politicians who usurp the toga.

In closing, we remind you that the lawfare with which Your jurisdiction harmed Lula is living proof that there is no biography to save, but rather the political capital that Your mercenary actions under the judicial robe afforded you. 

Sad tropics, and we still miss Morais Moreira sorely, the crying is over...