I can push, but you can't.

Pressures and counter-pressures are inevitable in a democratic society. And it's more than natural that it should be so. Each class, each group, each corporation, each individual wants to defend their interests and to do so mobilizes and pressures those who make decisions. It's nonsense to say that one doesn't negotiate under pressure, because it is under pressure that one negotiates.

There are stronger pressures, and lighter ones. There are pressures that are legitimate, and others that are illegitimate. We are talking about pressures that do not involve the use of brute force, blackmail, or threats, but rather pressure exerted through words and actions that do not represent a violation of the law and the good norms of democratic coexistence. The repression of violent pressures that violate the law must also be placed within the framework of legislation and democratic tolerance.

It was funny to see some newspapers and magazines denouncing and criticizing the pressure allegedly being exerted on the Supreme Federal Court to postpone the "mensalão" trial until after the elections. Funny because these same newspapers and magazines were putting enormous pressure on an immediate trial and are still pressuring the reviewing minister, Ricardo Lewandowski, to present his report soon.

A typical case of double standards. I can exert pressure, you can't. Pressure for the conviction of the defendants is allowed. Pressure for acquittal is not. Advocating for a trial during the election period is legitimate. Advocating for it to be immediately afterward, as if two months would make a significant difference to justice after a seven-year wait, is illegitimate.

Leaving aside the hypocrisy of double standards and those who think they can do what others cannot, there is nothing wrong with pressure, and that is how democracy works. What cannot happen, on the part of judges, is submission to pressure, whether it comes from one side or the other. The ministers of the Supreme Federal Court have lifetime appointments; they cannot be removed from their positions precisely to resist the pressures of the powerful and to be immune to actions by the Executive and Legislative branches. Similarly, they must resist pressure from the press, or organized groups, or any person, and decide according to the evidence and their legal conviction.

Supreme Court justices, or any judge – even those in football – don't have to worry about being applauded or booed in the streets, or whether people look at them with admiration or contempt. They are not politicians, they don't run for elected office. They have to deliver sentences and votes based on legal arguments, not because there is a clamor, whether genuine, exaggerated, or invented, in a particular direction. Everyone knows that football referees who favor their favorite teams or who accept pressure from club officials or fan groups are bad referees. In popular parlance, they are thieves.

Much of the press has already judged and condemned the defendants in the "mensalão" scandal as a group, and wants the Supreme Court to fully ratify its decision. That's their role, although often the fundamentals of journalism are replaced by political and ideological positions. The role of the justices is to ignore these and any other pressures, from any side, and to make a correct and fair judgment. And, preferably, to speak less about the matter before casting their votes.