Talk:Judiciary of Brazil

Brazil: Government and laws Mid‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judiciary of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525140044/http://www.stj.jus.br/portal_stj/publicacao/engine.wsp to http://www.stj.jus.br/portal_stj/publicacao/engine.wsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good reference[edit]

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/legal-research-guide/brazil-legal.php?loclr=bloglaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

If it is the Supreme Court, capitalize. If it is "a" federal court, do not. If there is more than one instance possible of a thing (appeal for example) then this is a common noun and is not capitalized. This is a rule of English and is always going to be true regardless of Brazilian practice. Elinruby (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useful court system diagram[edit]

There's a very useful diagram of the Brazilian court system here, which can be found at this article at Folha de S.Paulo, which is one in their series on "Understanding the Law". We should do some research at the website of the Conselho Nacional de Justiça (which is where the author of this article got the raw data to build their diagram, from tables 5, 6, and 7 at this pdf at the CNJ), and come up with a similar table, and either propose it to be created at the Graphics Lab, or just create it ourselves as a wikitable, which would be easier to maintain, once created. Note: the CNJ document appears to be from 2009, so we should look for updated figures. Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See next section. Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article section re-org[edit]

I've been reorganizing the section structure, to make the article more comprehensible. Before, it was organized as a flat list of top-level (H2) sections with no subdivisions (e.g., in this version). I've restructured it by adding some new, top-level sections, notably "Federal courts" and "State courts" (which perhaps should be federal and state "judiciary", because it isn't just about the courts), and altered some of the existing sections so they form a hierarchy that makes more sense, moving a few sections up or down to follow the new hierarchy. In this organizational structure, I've been guided principally by the diagram of the Brazilian judiciary with its top-level division of "federal" and "state" as found in this diagram from Folha de S.Paulo's Brazilian Justice website, a diagram which they source to the Conselho Nacional de Justiça linked above. Our template {{Courts of Brazil diagram}} adapts this table.

The 92 courts of the Brazilian judiciary
v t e	State		Federal
Superior courts		0	Supreme Federal Court STF	1
Superior courts		0	Federal superior courts STJ TSE TST STM	4
Common justice	Court of Justice TJ	27	Federal Regional Courts TRF1 .. TRF6	6
Specialized justice	Court of Military Justice^[pt]	3	Electoral Justice Courts TRE	27
Specialized justice	TJM	3	Regional Labor Courts TRT	24
Total ^[1]^[2]^[3]		30		62

The re-org involved mostly a hierarchy of H2 top-level sections, and with some nested H3 and H4 subsections under them, organized by federal and state. This isn't the only possible organization, and Article 92 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 (along with later amendments), which lays out the 9-part division of organs of the judiciary, is another way to do it, and closer to the way the article was organized before, but it was very difficult to follow.

Neither way is perfect, and one weakness of the new re-org (if 'weakness' is even the right word) is that Article 92 defined some of the organs across federal-state boundaries, such as item VI, "Tribunais e Juízes Militares", but the actual organization includes some federal military courts and judges, and some at the level of the states, so whereas in in the earlier, "flat" organization, the military courts were all in one section, now they are in two subsections, one under "Federal" and the other under "State" because are the major, top-level division. But imho, this is an acceptable price to pay, because it makes the organization comprehensible, and because the military courts really are organized that way (you can see that reflected in the diagram, where you can see the "State military justice courts" in the "State" column, but the "STM" ("Superior Military Court", a federal superior court) in the "Federal" column).

But I'm open to suggestions if the new, top-level structure doesn't seem clear to some. Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "O Brasil tem 91 tribunais - Para Entender Direito" [Brazil has 91 courts - Understand the Law]. Folha de S. Paulo (in Portuguese). 20 October 2010. Archived from the original on 3 September 2015.
^ DataSelf (8 January 2021). "Conheça as diferenças e funções dos tribunais brasileiros" [Know the differences and functions of the Brazilian courts] (in Portuguese). DataSelf. Retrieved 28 June 2023.
^ Conselho Nacional de Justiça. "Tribunais - Portal CNJ" [Courts - CNJ Portal]. National Council of Justice (in Portuguese). Retrieved 28 June 2023.

Excessive capitalization[edit]

There's a massive amount of over-capitalization at the article. Someone who was active at this article introduced a huge number of incorrect capital letters, almost looks like German or Ben Franklin's English, in some cases. I've started to remove some of them around the edges, as I work on other things, but I'm sure I'm missing most of them. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context[edit]

The article lacks any historical context. The judiciary is defined in the 1988 Constitution, but that didn't come out of nowhere, and there were precursors. There should be a #History section, that explains how the current judiciary or parts of the Constitution that defined it, evolved from earlier experience of the Judiciary in Brazil. Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah haha like oh by the way this used to be a military dictatorship and before that it was a lawless plantation oligarchy built on the slave trade. Elinruby (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plantation economy
Slavery in Brazil
Brazilian military dictatorship
1964 Brazilian coup d'etat
[https:/,/www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2713718.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiU_O_oxeX_AhUUJ30KHWECD4AQFnoECEcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ya3T91uTmwUqseGLOCjEa] Elinruby (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)][reply]
Operation Brother Sam Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'll be able to get to history here, but the National Council of Justice was in even worse shape, and I've done some work there, including a small section on history. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "O Brasil tem 91 tribunais - Para Entender Direito" [Brazil has 91 courts - Understand the Law]. Folha de S. Paulo (in Portuguese). 20 October 2010. Archived from the original on 3 September 2015.

[2] DataSelf (8 January 2021). "Conheça as diferenças e funções dos tribunais brasileiros" [Know the differences and functions of the Brazilian courts] (in Portuguese). DataSelf. Retrieved 28 June 2023.

[3] Conselho Nacional de Justiça. "Tribunais - Portal CNJ" [Courts - CNJ Portal]. National Council of Justice (in Portuguese). Retrieved 28 June 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]