A Primeira República Brasileira e o Supremo Tribunal Federal: aprender com o passado para não errar no presente e melhorar no futuro
Cícero José Barbosa Nery Júnior
- Vol. 6, Iss: 2, pp 1-23
TLDR
In this article, the authors analyze the role of the Supreme Federal Court in the Brazilian Republic and compare the actions of the court in both the First and Sixth Republics of Brazil.Abstract:
The proactive performance of the Supreme Federal Court has raised criticism and fears over the past few years. It is feared a disharmony between the Powers. However, the answer to this fear would not be an excessive limitation in their performance. For this reason, the present work will analyze the constitutional role of the Judiciary Power in the inauguration of the Brazilian Republic, more specifically its top organ, the Supreme Federal Court. After that, it will briefly and succinctly compare the actions of the Supreme Court in both the First and Sixth Republics of Brazil. Through doctrinal, jurisprudential and normative sources, we will seek to emphasize the importance of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil in guaranteeing Brazilian constitutional rights, as well as the need to maintain harmony between the Powers.read more
References
More filters
Judicialização, ativismo judicial e legitimidade democrática
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors analyse certain signs of particular relevance in this phenomenon: the judicialisation of life, judicial activism and its incidence on democracy in Brazil and its Federal Supreme Court.
Journal ArticleDOI
Dworkin versus cappelletti: qual o modelo de juiz adequado ao estado democrático de direito?
TL;DR: The modelos cappellettiano and dworkiniano, partindo-se da relacao entre o modelo de jurisdicação e de magistrado, buscar-se a chegar a novo modelo of jurisdicião e, sobremodo, de juiz, which deve estar blindada contra todo o tipo de decisionismos e arbitrariedades judiciais as mentioned in this paper.
Judicialização e ativismo judicial na perspectiva do estado democrático de direito
TL;DR: The legal thought has undergone significant historical changes that increased the role of interpreter and law applicator and hence created greater autonomy of the judiciary in relation to the legislative branch: judges are not anymore the "mouth of the law" and became partners in the law-making process as mentioned in this paper.