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.”

  • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Europe we try to divide Politics and Judicial appointments.

      The French, at least, beg to differ.

      But doesn’t Lula know any other lawyer, one that hasn’t been representing him in court, but still one trusts?

      None that he’s had such time and experience dealing with, no.

      there is actually no conflict in interest

      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.

      Lula is countering the other judges, and that is in his interest?

      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.

      • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Europe we try to divide Politics and Judicial appointments. The French, at least, beg to differ.

        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.

        • ChapolinColoradoNZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

            • ChapolinColoradoNZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The same supreme court that saw nothing wrong with the prosecution against him and also found no flaw on the ruling of 12 other judges, somehow decides that jurisdiction was an irrefutable issue and that the whole process would have to start all over again. Yeah, that makes sense…