Brazil's federal senate rejected attorney general Jorge Messias's nomination to the Supreme Federal Court, the first such rejection in over a century. Fletcher and Octavio dig into what this vote reveals about the balance of power in Brazil and the future of Latin American democracy.
El senado brasileño rechazó la nominación del fiscal general Jorge Messias al Tribunal Supremo Federal, algo que no había ocurrido en más de cien años. Fletcher y Octavio exploran qué revela este voto sobre el equilibrio de poder en Brasil y el futuro de la democracia latinoamericana.
7 essential B2-level terms from this episode, with translations and example sentences in Spanish.
| Spanish | English | Example |
|---|---|---|
| rechazar | to reject, to turn down | El senado rechazó la nominación del fiscal general al Tribunal Supremo. |
| equilibrio de poderes | balance of powers, checks and balances | El equilibrio de poderes es fundamental para que funcione una democracia. |
| votación secreta | secret ballot | La votación secreta reveló que muchos aliados del presidente también votaron en contra. |
| nominar | to nominate | El presidente tiene el derecho de nominar a los magistrados del tribunal supremo. |
| independencia judicial | judicial independence | La independencia judicial es esencial para que los ciudadanos confíen en el sistema legal. |
| polarización | polarization | La polarización política en Brasil ha dificultado los acuerdos entre el gobierno y el parlamento. |
| subjuntivo | subjunctive mood | Es importante que uses el subjuntivo después de expresiones de emoción o valoración. |
Brazil's senate voted yesterday, and the number that matters isn't forty-two to thirty-four.
It's one hundred years.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
El senado rechazó la nominación del fiscal general Jorge Messias al Tribunal Supremo Federal.
The senate rejected attorney general Jorge Messias's nomination to the Supreme Federal Court.
Es la primera vez que esto ocurre desde la Primera República, hace más de cien años.
It's the first time this has happened since the First Republic, more than a hundred years ago.
And Messias wasn't just any lawyer Lula pulled off a list.
He was Lula's own attorney general, which tells you something about what this nomination was really about.
Claro, y eso es precisamente el problema.
Right, and that's precisely the problem.
Nominar a tu propio fiscal general al tribunal más poderoso del país, justo cuando ese tribunal está juzgando a tus enemigos políticos, es una jugada muy arriesgada.
Nominating your own attorney general to the most powerful court in the country, right when that court is prosecuting your political enemies, is a very risky move.
Walk me through the STF for a second, because I think most people outside Brazil don't fully appreciate how powerful this court has become.
El Supremo Tribunal Federal tiene once jueces y, en los últimos años, ha acumulado un poder enorme.
The Supreme Federal Court has eleven justices and in recent years has accumulated enormous power.
No solo interpreta la Constitución, sino que también ha tomado decisiones políticas muy importantes, como procesar a los participantes del ataque al Congreso en enero de 2023.
It doesn't just interpret the Constitution;
January eighth, 2023.
Bolsonaro supporters stormed the Congress, the presidential palace, and the Supreme Court itself.
It was Brazil's own version of a siege, and the STF ended up at the center of the prosecution.
Sí, y esto es fundamental para entender la situación actual.
Yes, and this is fundamental for understanding the current situation.
El STF procesó a cientos de personas y también investiga a Bolsonaro por intento de golpe de estado.
The STF prosecuted hundreds of people and is also investigating Bolsonaro for attempted coup.
El tribunal se convirtió en el guardián de la democracia, pero también en un actor político muy visible.
The court became the guardian of democracy, but also a very visible political actor.
Which creates a legitimacy problem that's genuinely tricky.
The court is doing things that courts arguably should be doing, but it's doing them in a context where every decision looks partisan.
Eso es lo más difícil de explicar.
That's the hardest thing to explain.
No es que el tribunal esté actuando mal necesariamente.
It's not that the court is necessarily acting badly.
Es que cuando la democracia está bajo amenaza, los jueces tienen que actuar, y ese activismo genera sus propias tensiones.
It's that when democracy is under threat, judges have to act, and that activism generates its own tensions.
So Lula nominates his attorney general to this court that's already deeply enmeshed in political battles, and the opposition-controlled senate says, flatly, no.
Cuarenta y dos senadores votaron en contra, treinta y cuatro a favor.
Forty-two senators voted against, thirty-four in favor.
Fue una votación secreta, lo que hace el resultado aún más significativo, porque muchos senadores que públicamente apoyan a Lula votaron en su contra.
It was a secret ballot, which makes the result even more significant, because many senators who publicly support Lula voted against him.
A secret ballot.
That detail matters enormously.
When the vote is secret, you find out what people actually think, not what they're willing to say in public.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
Y eso sugiere que la preocupación sobre la nominación era más amplia de lo que parecía.
And that suggests the concern about the nomination was broader than it appeared.
No era solo la derecha.
It wasn't just the right wing.
Había legisladores del centro, incluso algunos aliados de Lula, que consideraban que esta nominación cruzaba una línea.
There were centrist legislators, even some of Lula's allies, who felt this nomination crossed a line.
Here's what I keep coming back to: in a hundred years of Brazilian history, through military dictatorship, through redemocratization, through all of that, the senate had never rejected a Supreme Court nominee.
Until now.
Brasil tuvo una dictadura militar de 1964 a 1985.
Brazil had a military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985.
Durante esos años, los presidentes nombraban jueces sin que nadie se atreviera a decir nada.
During those years, presidents appointed judges without anyone daring to say anything.
Y cuando volvió la democracia, la tradición era simplemente confirmar las nominaciones presidenciales al tribunal.
And when democracy returned, the tradition was simply to confirm presidential nominations to the court.
It reminds me of a period in the United States where Supreme Court nominations were almost purely ceremonial confirmations.
Robert Bork changed that in 1987, when the senate rejected him and turned confirmation hearings into the political theater we know today.
Es una comparación interesante.
It's an interesting comparison.
En Brasil, el proceso de confirmación siempre fue bastante tranquilo.
In Brazil, the confirmation process was always fairly quiet.
El senado hacía preguntas, el candidato respondía, y casi siempre se confirmaba la nominación.
The senate asked questions, the candidate answered, and the nomination was almost always confirmed.
Esta vez fue diferente desde el principio.
This time was different from the start.
Who is Messias, actually?
Because I realize I've been talking about him as a symbol of something without describing the actual person.
Jorge Messias es abogado, fue nombrado fiscal general por Lula en 2023.
Jorge Messias is a lawyer, appointed attorney general by Lula in 2023.
Es un hombre leal al gobierno, lo que no es inusual para un fiscal general, pero lo que sorprendió a muchos fue que Lula lo nominara al STF con su mandato como fiscal todavía activo.
He's a man loyal to the government, which isn't unusual for an attorney general, but what surprised many was that Lula nominated him to the STF while his mandate as attorney general was still active.
Which is the thing that made this feel different to people.
Not just that Lula was nominating a political ally, which presidents always do.
It was nominating the sitting top prosecutor.
Y hay algo más que es importante mencionar.
And there's something else important to mention.
El STF actualmente tiene una vacante después de la muerte del magistrado André Mendonça en febrero.
The STF currently has a vacancy after the death of Justice André Mendonça in February.
Lula tenía derecho a nominar a alguien, pero la elección de Messias fue una señal política muy clara.
Lula had the right to nominate someone, but choosing Messias was a very clear political signal.
A signal that read, I want my person on this court.
Which, again, is something every president wants.
The question is always how naked the ambition is.
En este caso fue demasiado obvio.
In this case it was too obvious.
La oposición lo llamó directamente un intento de controlar el tribunal.
The opposition called it directly an attempt to control the court.
Y la argumentación tuvo éxito, no solo entre los senadores de derecha, sino también entre legisladores más moderados.
And the argument worked, not just among right-wing senators, but also among more moderate legislators.
There's a paradox buried in this story that I find genuinely fascinating.
The STF has spent the last two years defending Brazilian democracy against Bolsonaro and his supporters.
And now the concern is that the same court could become a tool for a different kind of concentration of power.
Eso es exactamente el dilema.
That is exactly the dilemma.
Los jueces que protegieron la democracia de un autócrata ahora son vistos, por algunos, como demasiado poderosos.
The judges who protected democracy from an autocrat are now seen, by some, as too powerful.
Y la pregunta es: ¿cómo mantienes la independencia judicial cuando el tribunal ha tenido que ser tan activo políticamente?
And the question is: how do you maintain judicial independence when the court has had to be so politically active?
I spent time in Buenos Aires in the nineties, and this debate about judicial independence in Latin America is decades old.
Courts either get captured by the executive or they overreach into politics trying to resist capture.
There's almost no stable middle ground.
Brasil es un caso especialmente complicado porque su Constitución de 1988, la que nació después de la dictadura, le dio al Supremo un papel muy amplio.
Brazil is an especially complicated case because its 1988 Constitution, the one born after the dictatorship, gave the Supreme Court a very broad role.
No es solo un árbitro constitucional.
It's not just a constitutional arbiter.
Es casi una cuarta rama del gobierno.
It's almost a fourth branch of government.
A constitution written by people who'd lived under a dictatorship and were determined to build in safeguards.
And sometimes those safeguards create their own complications thirty years later.
Es verdad.
That's true.
Y lo que vemos ahora es una especie de reequilibrio.
And what we're seeing now is a kind of rebalancing.
El senado, que representa a las regiones y a los estados, está diciéndole al presidente: hasta aquí.
The senate, which represents the regions and states, is telling the president: this far and no further.
No puedes nombrar a quien quieras sin consecuencias.
You can't appoint whoever you want without consequences.
Which is a very old idea in democratic theory.
Madison called it the ambition counteracting ambition.
You build institutions that fight each other so no single power center dominates.
Sí, y lo llamativo es que funcionó.
Yes, and what's striking is that it worked.
En un momento muy tenso de la política brasileña, cuando la polarización es enorme, las instituciones respondieron.
At a very tense moment in Brazilian politics, when polarization is enormous, the institutions responded.
Eso no es poco.
That's no small thing.
Though I'd be careful about reading this too optimistically.
Lula now has to nominate someone else.
And the lesson he might take is not 'nominate someone more independent,' but 'nominate someone more quietly confirmable who still delivers what I want.'
Es posible.
That's possible.
Y también hay que considerar el impacto que esto tendrá en la relación entre Lula y el senado en los próximos meses.
And we also have to consider the impact this will have on the relationship between Lula and the senate in the coming months.
Las negociaciones políticas en Brasil siempre son complicadas.
Political negotiations in Brazil are always complicated.
Después de una derrota así, se vuelven aún más tensas.
After a defeat like this, they become even more tense.
Lula is seventy-nine years old.
He's been doing this for fifty years.
He survived prison, cancer, two failed presidential campaigns, and a coup attempt against him after he finally won.
He knows how to absorb a political blow.
Totalmente.
Totally.
Lula es quizás el político más resistente de su generación en América Latina.
Lula is perhaps the most resilient politician of his generation in Latin America.
Pero esta derrota es diferente porque ocurre en un momento en que su gobierno ya enfrenta críticas económicas y su popularidad ha bajado desde los primeros meses de su mandato.
But this defeat is different because it comes at a moment when his government already faces economic criticism and his popularity has dropped since the first months of his term.
The broader picture here, when you step back, is whether Brazil's democratic institutions are strong enough to hold the country together through this level of polarization.
And this vote, oddly, is a small piece of evidence that they might be.
Eso es lo que más me interesa de esta historia.
That's what interests me most about this story.
No es solo un drama político de Brasilia.
It's not just a political drama in Brasilia.
Es una señal de que es posible que los controles y equilibrios funcionen, incluso en un sistema que parecía muy frágil hace apenas dos años.
It's a signal that checks and balances can work, even in a system that seemed very fragile just two years ago.
Hey, can I ask you about something you said a few minutes back?
You used the phrase 'que haya ocurrido algo así' when you were talking about how rare this vote is.
Why 'haya' and not 'ha ocurrido'?
Buena pregunta.
Good question.
Cuando dices 'es sorprendente que haya ocurrido', usas el subjuntivo porque estás expresando una reacción emocional o una valoración sobre el hecho.
When you say 'it's surprising that it has occurred,' you use the subjunctive because you're expressing an emotional reaction or assessment of the fact.
El verbo principal, 'es sorprendente', introduce la cláusula con subjuntivo.
The main verb, 'it's surprising,' introduces the clause with a subjunctive.
So it's the 'that it happened' clause that needs the subjunctive, not the fact itself.
You'd say 'ocurrió' on its own, but once it comes after something like 'es sorprendente,' the grammar shifts.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
'Ocurrió' describe el hecho.
'Ocurrió' describes the fact.
'Que haya ocurrido' lo sitúa dentro de una valoración.
'Que haya ocurrido' places it within an assessment.
Es la diferencia entre reportar algo y reaccionar ante ello.
It's the difference between reporting something and reacting to it.
Y en español, esa diferencia cambia el tiempo verbal.
And in Spanish, that difference changes the verb tense.
So the grammar is actually encoding the speaker's attitude.
That's not how we do it in English at all.
We'd just say 'it's surprising that this happened' and the tense stays the same.
Por eso el subjuntivo es tan difícil para los angloparlantes.
That's why the subjunctive is so hard for English speakers.
No es que sea arbitrario.
It's not that it's arbitrary.
Es que en español, la gramática hace un trabajo que en inglés hace el contexto o la entonación.
It's that in Spanish, grammar does a job that in English is done by context or intonation.
Right, so I need to train my ear to hear that as a signal, not just as a different verb ending.
Although at this rate, by the time I get the subjunctive right, Lula will probably have named three more judges.