> In other words, the judge is not breaking the law.
This doesn't even make sense, the fact congress doesn't do it's job does not mean the judge is not breaking the law.
> What I think I'm hearing you say is you disagree with your checks-and-balances government's application of law, local attempts to change that law has failed for reasons, so now you support vigilantism in order to get around the law you believe was misapplied.
There are no applications of the law, they are just not doing their job period. And "vigilantism" is exactly what the judge is doing.
> Be careful. Brazil isn't recognized as being an authoritarian regime.
It just takes one 10 minutes to learn that Brazilian has an authoritarian justice system.
This doesn't even make sense, the fact congress doesn't do it's job does not mean the judge is not breaking the law.
> What I think I'm hearing you say is you disagree with your checks-and-balances government's application of law, local attempts to change that law has failed for reasons, so now you support vigilantism in order to get around the law you believe was misapplied.
There are no applications of the law, they are just not doing their job period. And "vigilantism" is exactly what the judge is doing.
> Be careful. Brazil isn't recognized as being an authoritarian regime.
It just takes one 10 minutes to learn that Brazilian has an authoritarian justice system.