Action against Moreira's privileged jurisdiction is a 'just judgment' for Janot and the Supreme Court.
The question is essentially this: if what's good for the goose is good for the gander, says Fernando Brito, editor of Tijolaço, questioning what Rodrigo Janot and Gilmar Mendes' attitude will be towards Moreira Franco, who became a minister to be shielded from Lava Jato.
By Fernando Brito, editor of brick
In April 2006, the Attorney General of the Republic, Rodrigo Janot, sent a document to the Supreme Federal Court. demonstration to prevent Lula from taking office as Chief of Staff to Dilma RousseffHe said that his choice was intended, without prejudice to other potentially legitimate choices, to affect the jurisdiction of the first instance court and disrupt the progress of the criminal investigations in the Lava Jato case. At that time, the former president was not even a defendant: no charges had yet been accepted against him.
Gilmar Mendes did not hesitate and issued a ruling on Writ of Mandamus 34.070, filed by the PPS party, prohibiting the appointment because, according to him, the nomination to the Ministry "produced a concrete result entirely incompatible with the current constitutional order: granting the investigated party jurisdiction in the Supreme Federal Court."
Yesterday, former judge and lawyer for the Rede party, Márlon Reis, filed a writ of mandamus almost identical to the one filed by the PPS against Lula, which was granted by Janot and Gilmar, with one small difference.
That's because – as can be read in full, published by Power360 – it is entirely based on the decisions of Gilmar Mendes himself, who endorsed the arguments of the Attorney General.
The present case is one of intrinsic identity: i) Mr. Moreira Franco, like Lula, was hastily appointed to a Ministry, aggravated by the fact that, in this case, it was created without any justifiable reasons of public interest; ii) This manipulation occurs with the sole purpose of granting him special jurisdiction due to his position after the developments of Operation Lava Jato.
The only difference between the two is the way the mainstream press treated and reported on both events. Therefore, different treatment for both cases would represent the greatest affront by this Supreme Court to the constitutional principle of equality in its procedural actions.
Márlon hit the nail on the head. Although I personally disagree with depriving any citizen of political rights except for criminal conviction, as provided for in the Clean Record Law, of which the former judge is one of the authors.
The question is essentially this: does what's good for the goose also apply to Francisco, as Dr. Janot used to say some time ago?
The last time I said thatThe Republic demands that what's good for the goose is good for the gander."In the Supreme Court plenary session, against Renan Calheiros, as is known, 'Francisco,' instead of a beating, received supreme affection."