16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Autocontenção à brasileira? Uma taxonomia dos argumentos jurídicos (e estratégias políticas?) explicativo(a)s do comportamento do STF nas relações com os poderes majoritários Translated title: A Brazilian self-restraint? A taxonomy of legal arguments (and political strategies?) which explain the behavior of the Supreme Court in relations with the major branches of power

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumo Como as cortes justificam sua opção pela autocontenção isto é sua escolha expressa ou implícita por não decidir um caso notadamente na presença de repercussões políticas favorecendo as instituições majoritárias e preservando os órgãos julgadores de custos políticos indesejáveis? A literatura brasileira sobre a revisão judicial em Direito e em Ciência Política debruça-se sobre as noções de ativismo e de autocontenção estabelecendo seus pressupostos teóricos e analisando os dados que mostram a prática decisória (e omissões) do STF. Inexiste contudo um inventário sobre os critérios técnicos utilizados pelo tribunal. Este artigo inova ao oferecer esta leitura: como o STF pode se eximir de julgar? Há argumentos jurídico-processuais que viabilizam esta opção institucional empregados em sede de controle concentrado e difuso de constitucionalidade por aquele Tribunal. Oferece-se ao leitor através de uma metodologia exploratória e descritiva do conteúdo das decisões (de natureza autocontida) tomadas pelos membros do Supremo Tribunal Federal um texto que pretende organizar e categorizar as diversas formas pelas quais o fenômeno institucional da autorrestrição judicial se manifesta na esfera do controle de constitucionalidade.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract How do the courts justify their choice for self-restraint that is their express or implied choice for not deciding a case notably in the presence of political repercussions favoring the majority institutions and preserving the judges of undesirable political costs? The Brazilian literature on judicial review in Law and Political Science focuses on the notions of activism and self-restraint establishing its theoretical assumptions and analyzing the data that show the decision-making practice (and omissions) of the STF. There is however no inventory on the technical criteria used by the court. This article innovates by offering this reading: how can the STF exempt itself from judging? There are legal-procedural arguments that make this institutional option feasible employed in a concentrated and diffuse judicial review by that Court. The reader is offered through an exploratory and descriptive methodology of the content of decisions (of a self-contained nature) taken by members of the Federal Supreme Court a text that intends to organize and categorize the various ways in which the institutional phenomenon of judicial self-restraint is manifested in the sphere of judicial review.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            More Supreme than the Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Legislative sanctions and the strategic environment of judicial review

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                rinc
                Revista de Investigações Constitucionais
                Rev. Investig. Const.
                Universidade Federal do Paraná (Curitiba, PR, Brazil )
                2359-5639
                April 2018
                : 5
                : 1
                : 221-247
                Affiliations
                [1] Pernambuco orgnameUniversidade de Pernambuco Brazil
                [4] orgnameCentro Universitário CESMAC Brazil
                [3] Pernambuco orgnameUniversidade Católica de Pernambuco Brazil
                [2] Pernambuco orgnameUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco Brazil
                Article
                S2359-56392018000100221
                10.5380/rinc.v5i1.55990
                0db6ef4d-bab5-4571-bbfa-74b5f20314b0

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 31 December 2017
                : 24 October 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 36, Pages: 27
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Dossiê - Separação de Poderes e Diálogos Institucionais

                autocontenção,controle de constitucionalidade,judicialização,taxonomy of legal arguments,Supremo Tribunal Federal,self-restraint,taxonomia dos argumentos jurídicos,judicial review,judicialization,Brazilian Supreme Court

                Comments

                Comment on this article