Brazilian president's former lawyer takes seat as Supreme Court justice
He helped Lula overturn a graft conviction stemming from Brazil’s sprawling “Car Wash” corruption investigation, getting him freed after 580 days of incarceration. The Supreme Court annulled all convictions of Lula, and ruled in 2021 that the judge overseeing the case had been biased. That allowed Lula to run successfuly for his third, non-consecutive presidential term.
In July, senators examining Zanin’s appointment questioned the lawyer about his ability to remain nonpartisan. A large majority of senators went on to vote in favor of his nomination, making the 47-year-old the youngest justice on the 11-member court.
Lula, who in March called Zanin “his friend” on radio BandNews FM, pedalled back in a later interview. “He was not a friend, he was my lawyer,” Lula told Record TV in July after Zanin’s appointment had been approved by the Senate. “He is an extremely capable person ... He is very studious, he is very competent, he is very dedicated and he is very serious. This is the reason why he was chosen.”
There's a weird insistence among Americans that the judiciary isn't just as political a position as the legislature or executive branches, despite enormous evidence to the contrary.
Zanin is no less qualified for the courts than Sergio Moro was qualified to be the Minister of Justice under Bolsonaro. And given the way Operation Carwash ultimately shook out, I can hardly blame Lula for wanting to balance out the courts with a few judges who aren't working hand-in-glove with prosecutors.
The legislative and executive branches are elected. The judiciary being political makes it an undemocratic head of government.
What, of course doesn't mean that they aren't. Just that it's not acceptable.
The judiciary being appointed makes it undemocratic.
But shy of appointing blindly or by lottery, no appointment process will be apolitical.
A course away from the days of zealous prosecution without regard for the civil rights of the defendant.
They should be selected by merit via an internal voting process of the higher scorers. This odd relationship between the different brunches of government is what messes up the boundaries each should operate under.
That's a great idea in theory. But you're pulling from a pool of people who are already at the top of their classes. The only points you assign or deduct on "merit" functionally amount to how tightly they cleave to the people performing the evaluation.
What is odd about a relationship between the people who write the laws and the people who interpret and enforce them? They all come from the same universities, work for the same political parties, fundraise from the same donors, and then go to work in the same city in buildings that are walking distance from one another.
It would be weird if they didn't have any kind of relationship.
By merit I didn't mean it would be a simple selection process. It would involve many aspects which wouldn't fit in a comment. Say, merit, competence, academic achievements, career results, the list goes on. You will always have the argument of "and who polices the police" and so on and to that I'd say the selection process would have to be such that it would account for that to mitigate it somehow.
It is an odd relationship. One where only personal interest plays a role. Their job isn't to "bend" the interpretation of the law to please their executive friend/ally. It's like expecting the police to arrest only right wing protesters because left wingers are supporters of the current government and therefore get a free pass. That's not how the judicial system is meant to work. That to me sounds more like another legislative branch with judicial powers and that's no bueno my friend, no matter how you spin it.
All these people come out of the same schools and get the same clerking gigs and work at the same white shoe law firms and federal agencies before being repped by a handful of Judiciary Committee Senators to move through a small set of Federal benches. They're all interchangeably meritable. You won't find one notably more qualified than the others, by any metric shy of "Did you get a gold star from the ACLU or the Federalist Society? (or their Brazilian equivalents)"
There's a native prejudice in the appointment process that leans towards prosecutors, because the state values prosecutors more highly than defense attorneys. DAs go on to be AGs go on to be Senators and Ministry/Department of Justice cabinet positions. And from there, they can break into the Federal Bench. Pro Bono defense attorneys aren't on this track. Criminal attorneys rarely, if ever, get the kind of recognition that prosecutors routinely receive.
How much would have to change in order for a selection process predicated on "merit"?
We're at a point in which a nationally recognized and respected defense attorney who has regularly argued in front of the highest appellate courts and won landmark cases isn't qualified to join those judges. How? Why? What are you even using to evaluate these professionals?
It seems as though being a defense attorney is the disqualifying factor. That's not any kind of meritocracy I recognize.
You came up with your own kind of selection process and you don't accept it. I can't argue with that...
I'm presenting hypothetical criteria to demonstrate the problem with an implementation of meritocracy. Merit isn't an objective measure. It is necessarily in the eye of the beholder.
In Europe we try to divide Politics and Judicial appointments. In the Americas though, it is a more common practice like you probably meant to say.
But doesn’t Lula know any other lawyer, one that hasn't been representing him in court, but still one he trusts?
Or, so you say that there is actually no conflict in interest, because Pres. Lula is countering the other judges, and that is in his interest?
The French, at least, beg to differ.
None that he's had such time and experience dealing with, no.
No, of course not. Shy of appointees being chosen blindly or by lottery, they all involve some conflicting interests. No President will appoint a judge who he knows will not support his party's policies. The entire appointment process is predicated on candidates courting the interests of the party that nominated them.
He's countering a prosecutorial bias within the existing court. As someone who was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted, he's got a compelling personal interest in doing so. But then so does every other Brazilian living in fear of unjust prosecution. They've all got an interest in a court with a larger continent of judges keeping an eye on the rights of defendants.
Yes, I stand corrected. It was a reaction to your first paragraph. There are several systems, and they are all a bit different.
And, tnx for your answer. Maybe one must really live though what's going on in Brazil to really compehrend the whole story. As an outsider, familiar with a different system, it does seem a bit strange at first glance.
Wanted to add that Lula wasn't wrongly prosecuted. Our judiciary has been overreaching for a while now and have gone above and beyond to act in their own interest and that of their allies. It was no different with Lula, and it was no different with Bolsonaro who just recently lost his political rights. They both deserved what they got and more but corrupt ministers will keep moving the goalpost (or better yet their interpretation of the law) to please those of their interest.