Na Folha de hoje:

“Mato Grosso “divide” com Justiça receita de tributos

Acordo, de 2003, dava 20% do valor de execuções fiscais convertidas em receita ao TJ

De cada R$ 100 que o governo de Mato Grosso arrecadou nos últimos dois anos em ações judiciais para a cobrança de tributos, R$ 20 foram para os cofres da própria Justiça.
Um protocolo de intenções, assinado em 2003 pelo governador Blairo Maggi (PR) e o então presidente do TJ (Tribunal de Justiça), o desembargador José Ferreira Leite, estabeleceu uma participação de 20% sobre “o valor total das execuções efetivamente convertidas em receita aos cofres públicos”.
Às 20h35 de sexta-feira, a assessoria de imprensa do TJ avisou a reportagem que o acordo havia sido cancelado por iniciativa do atual presidente, o desembargador Paulo Lessa, e que uma nota sobre o assunto fora divulgada no portal do TJ na internet. A nota, sob o título “TJ cancela protocolo de intenções”, foi publicada às 19h20. Por volta das 21h, o portal saiu do ar, com informação de que estava em manutenção.“

Poderes “independentes, mas harmônicos” é isso aí.

***

O NYT traz uma matéria sobre o drive pro-business da atual Suprema Corte norte-americana:

“Supreme Court Inc.

The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests.

(…)Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? Only history will ultimately make this clear. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. It represents the culmination of a carefully planned, behind-the-scenes campaign over several decades to change not only the courts but also the country’s political culture.“

Daí vemos que o esforço republicano em construir uma Suprema Corte conservadora vai muito além de Roe vs. Wade:

“Exactly how successful has the Chamber of Commerce been at the Supreme Court? Although the court is currently accepting less than 2 percent of the 10,000 petitions it receives each year, the Chamber of Commerce’s petitions between 2004 and 2007 were granted at a rate of 26 percent, according to Scotusblog. And persuading the Supreme Court to hear a case is more than half the battle: Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Georgetown who also represents environmental clients before the court, recently ran the numbers and found that the court reverses the lower court in 65 percent of the cases it agrees to hear; and when the petitioner is represented by the elite Supreme Court advocates routinely hired by the chamber, the success rate rises to 75 percent.

Faced with these daunting numbers, the progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. “The fight before the court is generally not an even one,” said David Vladeck, who once worked for the Public Citizen Litigation Group and now teaches law at Georgetown. “There’s us on one side, with a brief or two, and industry on the other side, with a well-coordinated campaign of 10 or 12 briefs, with each one written by a member of the elite Supreme Court bar that address an issue in enormous depth.” He added, ruefully, “You admire their handiwork, but it’s frustrating as hell to deal with.”