Who is capable of restraining those who demand restraint from others?

If lawyers, whom the major newspapers generically call experts, were doctors, thousands of people with serious health problems who depended on their diagnoses would die every day.

Lawyers make decisions based on their own references, as the philosopher Neném Prancha would say, and increasingly based on their political and ideological beliefs. Could it be any other way?

This is how one group argues that Flávio Dino acted strictly within the law when establishing limits for the enforcement of foreign decisions in Brazil. Another group believes he acted dangerously outside the law.

Dino is a predictable choice for some, and a judge of bizarre decisions for others. Some may even, inspired by André Mendonça, ask Dino to exercise restraint, as they do with Moraes.

Because, as even unconsulted experts will say, that's how the law works. Through subjectivity, through the shadows and lights of hermeneutics, through the perspectives of different viewpoints.

Experts give this various names, which are only of interest to them. But it should interest everyone, including judges who are not afraid of the discomfort of attacks from fascism disguised as disagreement.

What we must accept is that the world today belongs to lawyers, judges, legal professionals, and those who just kick the can down the road, not only in Brazil. 

Trump is only gaining ground in the United States because he has a two-thirds majority on the Supreme Court. Lower court judges, who tried to resist the advance of Trumpism, have already been restrained by the justices above them. 

That's the case in Argentina, where Mauricio Macri has packed the Supreme Court and almost all decisions are predictable. Almost everything decided in the final instance in Argentina is against Peronism, Kirchnerism, against Cristina Kirchner. The structures of the Judiciary have been hijacked by the right and far-right.

Except in Brazil? Here, the accusation is reversed, directed at those trying to contain the coup. But there is no political control of the Supreme Court in Brazil. Nor control by economic power. Much less by religious power. Even so, talk of a judicial dictatorship circulates.

Experts, who often produce poetry to explain their positions, know that they offer answers supported by their own frame of reference, appropriate to the circumstances. Ah, but it's always been this way. 

But these foundations are increasingly contaminated by their political beliefs and by the ideology that is accommodated, sometimes in a disguised way, in a corner of their analytical tools.

Thus, the same case, examined by 10 legal experts, can divide them in half, without either half backing down and admitting they are wrong. 

Because there are medical errors. There are errors in structural calculations by engineers. There are many disastrous mistakes made by journalists. But lawyers think they don't make mistakes. They only interpret.

And, according to some experts who analyze the decisions of Moraes and Flavio Dino, both go too far. And some legal experts go even further and foresee the political damage of Moraes and Dino's decisions, which is not a priority for legal professionals.

Dino himself defines his decisions as simplistic. They are more than simple; they are outrageously simplistic. But the legal scholars in academia, who were once complex in their Latin, now exist much more to be heard by Folha than to give lectures and conferences.

And so the far right survives and reorganizes itself, in the name of family and country, with God above all and everyone. But below jurists and magistrates who call on their colleagues for restraint.