This is a ridiculously uninformed piece, and as a fellow libertarian I expected more from Cato. A few things the author either didn't check or got wrong: 1) Both campaigns asked for the voting extension. Flávio Bolsonaro's own party requested extra hours in three states before the ruling. A remedy both sides asked for is not "selective interference." 2) The judge who confirmed the extension changed nothing is Nunes Marques, president of the Superior Electoral Court and a Bolsonaro appointee to the Supreme Court. The piece quotes him, then ignores what he said. 3) "A judge he had unilaterally appointed" is false. The TSE has seven seats: three Supreme Court justices, two from the Superior Court of Justice, and two lawyers the President names from a list of six drawn up by the Supreme Court. The ruling in question came from a lawyer-seat minister picked from that list. 4) Bolsa Família is a means-tested cash-transfer program, not "social security." Brazil has a social security system; this is not it, and the two run on different laws and budgets. @hiperfalcon also fails to mention that in 2022 his favored Bolsonaro side raised the same cash-transfer benefit by 50% a hundred days before the vote, with the same courts looking on (still the largest single raise in the program’s history). 5) X was blocked for refusing to keep a legal representative in the country, as the law requires of every company, and it came back the moment it complied. Brazil's courts deserve serious criticism, and this isn't it. That is a lot of mistakes for a seven-paragraph article.