Minister Mendes Blames Press, Financial Sector for Supreme Court Crises

Brazilian Minister Gilmar Mendes has adopted a strategy of blaming the messenger, particularly the press, for the crises and declining public trust surrounding the Supreme Court (STF), according to an analysis.

Mendes, a prominent figure often targeted by the left, employed this tactic in a recent interview with Folha de S.Paulo. When questioned about the negative impact of the "Caso Master" at the Forum de Lisboa, he suggested that individuals seeking to align with Folha's ideology were echoing criticisms. Similarly, when asked about the STF's confidence crisis, he implied that the newspaper's own polls revealed public frustration, thus shifting blame.

The article contends that Mendes consistently attributes problems to the "Golpista Press" (a term for a supposedly coup-mongering press) and "Faria Lima" (a metaphor for hidden financial interests). While acknowledging failures by the CVM (Brazil's securities commission) and unethical practices by banks, the author argues Mendes uses these systemic issues as a shield to exempt the STF from investigating its own members.

Specific examples cited include the STF's handling of reports concerning ministers Toffoli and Moraes. The article claims the STF ignored a Federal Police report on Toffoli and, regarding Moraes, investigations reportedly focus on a leaker rather than the contract itself. Mendes's stance on an ethics code proposed by Fachin also reveals a contradiction, as he simultaneously denies internal division while criticizing the proposal for creating "a certain lack of intelligence."

The author suggests Mendes's aversion to Folha's "ideology" stems from its demand for legal equality, contrasting with what the article describes as Brazil's "patrimonialist tradition" of excessive privileges and dubious dealings among elites. Mendes's justification for maintaining the exceptional "fake news" inquiry, citing the "environment of radicalism" and electoral fervor, is also questioned as deviating from standard legal practice where inquiries have defined factual objects.