Bricklayer: Decision regarding Dirceu paved the way for Lula's release.
"It is possible that tomorrow, one of the ministers will ask, in plenary session, that Cármen Lúcia put to a vote what should be voted on: the constitutional issue of imprisonment before the final judgment of sentences, regarding when and how they can or cannot occur," observes journalist Fernando Brito, editor of Tijolaço.
By Fernando Brito, from brick - Technically, the appeal filed by José Dirceu's defense is identical in every way to the one filed by Lula – and defeated 6-5 in the plenary session of the Supreme Federal Court – with the sole and vital difference being that it was, as it should have been for the former president, reviewed by the Second Panel, which judged the former minister's request.
That's all, nothing more.
And that was because Edson Fachin preferred to refer it to the plenary session, due to a political decision, just as he did now with the request for analysis of the extraordinary appeal of the former president, arbitrarily denied by the Regional Court of the 4th Region, after many delaying tactics.
Under normal circumstances, Dirceu would hardly have been released. On other occasions, at the Supreme Court, the former minister experienced merciless decisions.
Therefore, the correct diagnosis is that at least four Supreme Court justices – in addition to the three who voted in the Second Chamber (Dias Tófolli, Gilmar Mendes, and Ricardo Lewandowski), and also Marco Aurélio Mello – can no longer tolerate the underhanded tactics of Edson Fachin and Cármen Lúcia (with the noisy support of Luiz Roberto Barroso) to turn the Supreme Court into a political-electoral agent.
The media was surprised by the decision and, for the first time in many days, took the World Cup out of the headlines on their websites to be scandalized by a decision that, after all, is not surprising at all, except for the fact that part of a cowardly court decided to rebel against the 'mega-macho' attitude of judges.
It cannot be said that the Second Panel rejected a decision of the plenary session, because there can be no plenary decision when the 6-5 vote was formed with one minister – Rosa Weber – saying that she thought otherwise, but that, since the case was not being judged but rather a specific case, she could not cast a vote against a majority that, incidentally, she was not a part of.
It is possible that tomorrow, one of the ministers will ask, in plenary session, that Cármen Lúcia put to a vote what should be voted on: the constitutional question of imprisonment before the final judgment of sentences, regarding when and how they can or cannot occur.
I repeat what I said yesterday: what makes the internal crisis at the Supreme Federal Court unsustainable is not how judgments are made, but what is judged, when it is judged, and which justices are judging.
And, of course, the fact that cases with the greatest political repercussions, such as those of Dirceu and Lula, are in the hands of a legal and moral microbe like Luís Edson Fachin.
I cannot conclude this text without noting that, for an activist like José Dirceu, far more important than regaining his own freedom is having paved the way for Lula's liberation.