Upholding the Constitution: Lessons from America’s Oaths vs. Brazil’s Oath
By Laiz Rodrigues- Editor Hotspotnews
In the United States, Supreme Court justices take two solemn oaths that anchor their role as impartial guardians of the law. The Constitutional Oath binds them to “support and defend the Constitution… faithfully discharge the duties of the office,” while the Judicial Oath pledges to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” These oaths reflect America’s commitment to limited government, individual liberty, and judicial restraint, ensuring justices act as neutral arbiters rather than political players.
In Brazil, Supreme Federal Court (STF) justices swear a single oath to “faithfully fulfill the duties of the office in accordance with the Federal Constitution and the laws of the Republic.” This pledge, while seemingly similar to its American counterpart, has failed to prevent rampant judicial overreach, particularly against conservative voices. The STF’s actions under justices like Alexandre de Moraes reveal a betrayal of this oath, undermining constitutional principles of free speech and due process in favor of political activism.
Brazil’s 1988 Constitution tasks the STF with upholding democracy, yet justices have weaponized their authority to silence dissent, especially from conservatives aligned with former President Jair Bolsonaro. Moraes has spearheaded efforts to block hundreds of social media accounts, raid critics’ homes, and even demand compliance from foreign platforms, all under the pretext of fighting “disinformation.” Such moves directly contradict the oath’s promise to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees free expression and fair treatment. High-profile cases, like the sentencing of Congressman Daniel Silveira for criticizing the court or investigations into Bolsonaro for alleged coup plotting, show a clear bias against conservative figures, creating a chilling effect on political discourse.
Unlike the U.S., where dual oaths explicitly demand impartiality and equality, Brazil’s vague pledge allows justices to wield unchecked power. STF justices can initiate investigations, act as prosecutors, and rule on their own cases—a concentration of authority unimaginable in America’s system of checks and balances. This has led to what many Brazilians see as a “judicial dictatorship,” with nearly half the population viewing the court as overstepping its bounds. The STF’s “Fake News Inquiry” and bans on platforms like X further expose this failure, targeting conservative voices while sparing left-leaning ones.
Conservatives in Brazil face relentless persecution—arrests, account suspensions, and visa revocations—while the STF ignores its duty to apply laws equally. The court’s actions have drawn international criticism, including U.S. sanctions on Moraes for suppressing free speech. Unlike America’s oath-driven system, which curbs judicial activism through clear commitments to neutrality, Brazil’s STF exploits its vague oath to prioritize political agendas over constitutional fidelity, undermining the very democracy it claims to protect.
The contrast is stark: America’s oaths reinforce a judiciary that respects boundaries, while Brazil’s STF flouts its pledge to advance a counter-majoritarian agenda. Conservatives must advocate for stronger judicial accountability—perhaps adopting explicit impartiality clauses like those in the U.S.—to restore trust and ensure justices honor their sworn duty to the Constitution, not personal or political ends.