There have been many hits, but mistakes and excesses have been or are being corrected by an independent judiciary whose role is to balance the relationship between the parties in the criminal process. Regrettably, the Federal Supreme Court is the target of a once-conflicted country. Three deputies demanded the impeachment of the STF ministers who voted for the criminalization of homophobia.

Not enough the affront, when the Supreme Court determined which cases will be tried by the Electoral Court, a wave of attacks thorugh WhatsApp was flared against the court.

It is not possible that any court decision is seen as an attack to “lava jato”. It is not possible that judicial decisions — some common ones — are received with the hysteria that took care of sectors of the Brazilian society.

Any judgment against the Public Prosecutor’s Office creates a “death” of “lava-jato”. The first time the operation “died” was when the Supreme Court removed from Curitiba the cases of the power plants. A “lava jato” was born in Rio de Janeiro, under suspicion. But the investigation was strengthened.

In the case of the Electoral Court, the understanding that prevailed in the Supreme Court was due to the strict compliance with the law, which was long established in court. If Congress had approved a new Criminal Procedure Code, which has been in progress for decades, perhaps the rule of jurisdiction would be different, and such cases could be tried in the Common Court. But attacking the court for complying with the law is something that goes beyond the limits.

At present, there is an assessment that we have bad laws and therefore, judgments must be made against the law in the name of combating impunity. The country has not yet realized that there is no safe course without legal norms being followed; there is no fight against impunity without strict adherence to the law. The price of the Democratic State of Law, as Minister Marcus Aurelius says, is modest.

To imagine that other prosecutors or judges of the Electoral Court cannot punish politicians and powerful is to infantilize the process. In this way, the country does not consolidate the advances, even because the atmosphere of hatred and pressure is absolutely incompatible with Justice.

The request for impeachment of ministers of the Supreme Court on the basis of the votes they have given in the case of homophobia is simply inadmissible. Asking for the impeachment of the minister Celso de Mello, rapporteur of the case, is something that is — or should be — terrifying — to all. Taking this and other requests forward is something that compromises democracy. It seems that, for the underwriters of requests for impeachment, the STF ministers should either think like them or be dismissed. We would then have a pet Supreme Court, so to speak, which is a first step to a coup. The attempt to ensnare the supreme court is something that fits with dictatorial regimes. It is urgent to understand that without a judiciary free of pressures we will not have a full democracy.

Public opinion is not always right, and the story of Jesus Christ is there as a prime example that the mob can err. More often, they you want a result, without knowing the process and the evidence.

A court that bows to popular pressure and disregards the law commits serious injustices. Respecting the outcome of the trial is the golden rule of the democratic game. The player may not want to replace the referee each time his team is losing. Not even in the floodplain does it work.

While writing this text, I received a message with the Brazilian flag calling for the extinction of the supreme court. I remembered Castro Alves, who, in another context, showed amazement: “My God! my God! what flag is this, How impudent in the whirling city?”