Supremacia Judicial: trajetória, pressupostos, críticas e a alternativa dos diálogos constitucionais

A supremacia da Constituição exige que a Suprema Corte tenha a última palavra sobre o sentido da Constituição? As Supremas Cortes norte-americana e brasileira afirmam que sim, respaldadas pelo conhecimento convencional. O objetivo principal da tese é demonstrar que esta assertiva é simplesmente equivocada. Será reconstruída a história da expansão do papel político do Judiciário, no âmbito da interpretação constitucional, com vistas a elucidar os seus verdadeiros pressupostos. A evolução do constitucionalismo brasileiro será analisada à luz de tais critérios, para que se possa perceber que só há no Brasil algo parecido com uma supremacia judicial após 1988. Após o exame das críticas institucionais e democráticas, será explorado o potencial da doutrina dos diálogos constitucionais para explicar a realidade das interações entre os Poderes Legislativo e Judiciário na interpretação constitucional, e para prover um suporte normativo que logre reconciliar o fenômeno da judicialização da política com a democracia no Brasil.

Hermenêutica institucional, supremacia judicial e democracia

A presente tese pretende estudar dois modelos de função judicial o perfeccionismo (perfectionism) e o minimalismo (minimalism) judicial delineados por Cass Sunstein, destacando os seus fundamentos filosóficos, suas principais teses hermenêuticas, suas limitações decisórias e suas contribuições para o desenho institucional das relações entre os Poderes de Estado. O presente trabalho desenvolverá, neste sentido, duas perspectivas fundamentais, que são complementares, para o estudo das relações entre o constitucionalismo e a democracia nos sistemas político-jurídicos contemporâneos: em primeiro lugar, uma perspectiva hermenêutica, cuja preocupação reside, sobretudo, na sistematização das principais teses de cada um dos dois modelos no tocante à interpretação do texto constitucional. Em segundo lugar, será realizada uma abordagem institucionalista sobre as possíveis alternativas ao protagonismo do Supremo Tribunal Federal em termos de sua atuação como última instância na definição do significado dos dispositivos constitucionais. Para tanto, serão analisados, com apoio em um estudo comparativo, propostas de diálogo institucional que podem ser fomentadas a partir de uma visão minimalista de moderação judicial que contrasta, por sua vez, com a defesa hegemônica de uma atuação institucional ativista das cortes constitucionais na atualidade. Por último, com apoio nos modelos de função judicial delineados, será elaborada uma análise crítica da atividade jurisdicional dos ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal com fundamento no exame da argumentação empreendida em seus votos em casos constitucionais difíceis de grande repercussão política, moral e social.

O ativismo judicial em investida ao Estado democrático

Pós-graduação em Direito - FCHS

Diálogo Constitucional e Correção Legislativa da Jurisprudência no Direito Tributário Brasileiro

No âmbito de uma democracia constitucional que adota o controle judicial de constitucionalidade, o Judiciário sempre possui o poder de ser o árbitro definitivo das questões constitucionais? O trabalho investiga as alternativas legislativas que o Congresso pode adotar com a intenção de corrigir decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal, especialmente no Direito Tributário. Discute argumentos contrários à supremacia judicial, especialmente utilizando a doutrina norte-americana, e defende que a doutrina do diálogo constitucional pode desempenhar um papel relevante na interpretação constitucional, pois ressalta o fato de que o Legislativo possui uma importante participação na tarefa de definir o conteúdo da Constituição. Também são examinadas teorias da ciência política que trabalham com a hipótese de que as fronteiras entre os poderes no princípio da separação de poderes tornaram-se cinzentas. Neste sentido, a correção legislativa da jurisprudência pode preencher um importante papel na democracia, pois representa a possibilidade de uma troca de experiências entre os poderes do Estado e permite que interesses derrotados na esfera judicial possam apresentar novos argumentos em esfera diversa.

Diálogo institucional e direito à saúde

O trabalho busca analisar os problemas envolvendo a efetivação do direito à saúde no Brasil, os conflitos alocativos subjacentes à temática e o papel das instituições representativas, do Judiciário e da sociedade civil neste processo. Pretende-se reafirmar a importância da proteção do direito à saúde e, ao mesmo tempo, criticar uma certa euforia doutrinária e jurisprudencial que se instalou nos últimos anos e passou a compreender o Judiciário como o último guardião das promessas constitucionais não cumpridas pelos ramos representativos. O trabalho analisa as experiências constitucionais de países que não apostam no dogma da supremacia judicial e tentam conciliar a revisão judicial com mecanismos mais democráticos. A partir daí propõe o marco teórico das teorias do diálogo institucional como uma alternativa menos unilateral para enfrentar os desafios desencadeados no campo sanitário. No trabalho enfatiza-se a importância pelas preocupações com a efetividade da constituição, mas propõe-se uma reflexão sobre qual seria a melhor alternativa para tanto, chegando-se à conclusão contra-intuitiva de que talvez o caminho mais eficaz passe por um controle judicial fraco, que não despreze as potencialidades do Direito, mas que aposte mais na democracia e na interação sinérgica entre os ramos representativos e a sociedade civil.

Rights jurisprudence and the charter : evaluating the changing structure of Canadian federalism /

Abstract . Rights jiirisprudence in Canada dates back as far as Confederation in 1867. Between this date and 1982, the organizing principle of Confederation - federalism - has kept this jurisprudence solely within the supremacy of Parliament, subject to its confines and division of powers. After 1982, however, a new constitutional organizing principle was introduced, when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the patriation initiative, touted as the "people's package". Individual rights and freedoms were now guaranteed by the Constitution. Citizens of Canada now had a direct link to the Constitution via the Charter and there were now two significantly different organizing principles within the constitutional order widch created an unstable coexistence. This instability has led to a clash between judicially enforced Charter rights and federalism. The Charter has since had both a nationalizing and centralizing effect on Canadian federalism. This thesis explores the relationship between rights and federalism in Canada fix)m Confederation to present day by comparing the jurisprudence of pre and post Charter Canada. An analysis of Supreme Court's (and its predecessor's, the JCPC) decisions shows the profound effect the Charter has had on Canadian federalism. The result has been an undermining of federalism in Canada, with Parliamentary Supremacy replaced by Constitutional supremacy, and ultimately. Judicial Supremacy. Moreover, rights discourse has largely replaced federalism discourse. Canadians have become very attached to their Charter, and are unwilling to allow any changes to the constitution that may affect their rights as political elites discovered the hard way after the collapse of the Meech and Charlottetown Accords. If federalism is to remain a relevant and viable organizing principle in the Constitution, then governments, especially at the provincial level, must find new and iimovative ways to assert their importance within the federation.

Entre a supremacia e o diálogo: uma análise das proposições legislativas sobre a fidelidade partidária à luz das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal (2007-2012)

No ano de 2007, o Supremo Tribunal Federal modificou sua jurisprudência, que se mantinha inalterada desde 1988, e passou a entender pela existência do princípio da fidelidade partidária no ordenamento jurídico. Essa decisão foi criticada como um exemplo de Ativismo e de Supremacia Judicial. Com base em um estudo das proposições em tramitação no Congresso Nacional, identificamos como o Legislativo tem oferecido respostas à matéria. A partir desse estudo, se questiona se a teoria da Supremacia Judicial é mais adequada do que a teoria dos Diálogos Constitucionais para descrever a relação entre o Judiciário e o Legislativo no caso da fidelidade partidária.

Expanding our Constitutional Horizons: A Comprehensive Study of Quasi-Constitutionality in Canada

A number of laws in Canada which uphold rights are referred to as quasi-constitutional by the courts in recognition of their special importance. Quasi-constitutional statutes are enacted through the regular legislative process, although they are being interpreted and applied in a fashion which has become remarkably similar to constitutional law, and are therefore having an important affect over other legislation. Quasi-constitutionality has surprisingly received limited scholarly attention, and very few serious attempts at explaining its significance have been made. This dissertation undertakes a comprehensive study of quasi-constitutionality which considers its theoretical basis, its interpretation and legal significance, as well as its similarities to comparable forms of law in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. Part I examines the theoretical basis of quasi-constitutionality and its relationship to the Constitution. As a statutory and common law form of fundamental law, quasi-constitutionality is shown to signify an association with the Canadian Constitution and the foundational principles that underpin it. Part II proceeds to consider the special rules of interpretation applied to quasi-constitutional legislation, the basis of this interpretative approach, and the connection between the interpretation of similar provisions in quasi-constitutional legislation and the Constitution. As a statutory form of fundamental law, quasi-constitutional legislation is given a broad, liberal and purposive interpretation which significantly expands the rights which they protect. The theoretical basis of this approach is found in both the fundamental nature of the rights upheld by quasi-constitutional legislation as well as legislative intent. Part III explores how quasi-constitutional statutes affect the interpretation of regular legislation and how they are used for the purposes of judicial review. Quasi-constitutional legislation has a significant influence over regular statutes in the interpretative exercise, which in some instances results in conflicting statutes being declared inoperable. The basis of this form of judicial review is demonstrated to be rooted in statutory interpretation, and as such it provides an interesting model of rights protection and judicial review that is not conflated to constitutional and judicial supremacy.

Parâmetros de concretização judicial do direito fundamental à saúde no fornecimento de medicamentos

In Brazil, social rights have always been considered secondary legal categories, whose implementation could wait for the pending of political decisions. At the end of the Second World War, International Law emphasizes the protection of human beings, raising his dignity as a legal pillar of the legal orders and one of the main foundations of Constitutions. At the post-positivism Constitutionalism, the realization of social rights receives special attention with the assumption of supremacy and normativity of the Constitutions, while the judiciary participates in the realization of democracy, not only as applicator of laws, but also as the guardian of constitutionality of the acts and administrative omissions, creatively contributing to the constitutional achievement, filling gaps and normative state omissions. In this aspect, the supply of medicines, whose costs can not be supported by the individual, keep a close connection with the right to life, health and dignity of the human being, as the subject of numerous lawsuits directed against the Public Administration. Such phenomenon has caused intense debate regarding judicial activism and legitimacy of these decisions, particularly on the need to define what are the limits and possibilities considering the principle of separation of powers and the principle of reserve of the possible; bieng this the problematic developed in this research. Thus, this research aims to verify the legitimacy of judicial decisions that determines to the Public Administration the compulsory providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of their treatment, as well as, contribute to the dogmatic constructions of parameters to be observed by judicial interference. Regarding the methodology, this research has an investigative and descriptive caracter and an theoretical approach based on bibliographical data collection (judicial and doutrine decisions) that received qualitative treatment and dialectical approach. As a result, it is known that the judicial decision that determines the supply of medicines to those individuals who can not afford them with their own resources is legitimate and complies with the democratic principle, not violating the principle of separation of powers and the reserve of the possible, since the judicial decison is not stripped with an uniform and reasonable criteria, failing to contain high burden of subjectivism and witch signifies a possible exacerbation of functions by the judiciary, suffering, in this case, of requirement of legal certainty. It is concluded that the Court decision that determines the government the providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of treatment should be based on parameters such as: the protection of human dignity and the minimum existencial principle, the inafastable jurisdiction principle; compliance critique of the possible reserve principle; subsidiarity of judicial intervention; proportionality (quantitative and qualitative) in the content of the decision; the questioning about the reasons for non-delivery of the drug through administrative via; and, finally, the attention not to turn the judiciary into a mere production factor of the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to the cartelization of the right to health

Contemporary issues in Australian family law: Do we need a more unified and interventionist judicial model

Recent decisions of the Family Court of Australian reflect concerns over the adversarial nature of the legal process. The processes and procedures of the judicial system militate against a detailed examination of the issues and rights of the parties in dispute. The limitations of the family law framework are particularly demonstrated in disputes over the custody of children where the Court has tended to neglect the rights and interests of the primary carer. An alternative "unified family court" framework will be examined in which the Court pursues a more active and interventionist approach in the determination of family law disputes.

Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.

Outrage management in cases of sexual harassment as revealed in judicial decisions

Sexual harassment can be conceptualized as a series of interactions between harassers and targets that either inhibit or increase outrage by third parties. The outrage management model predicts the kinds of actions likely to be used by perpetrators to minimize outrage, predicts the consequences of failing to use these tactics—namely backfire, and recommends countertactics to increase outrage. Using this framework, our archival study examined outrage-management tactics reported as evidence in 23 judicial decisions of sexual harassment cases in Australia. The decisions contained precise, detailed information about the circumstances leading to the claim; the events which transpired in the courtroom, including direct quotations; and the judges' interpretations and findings. We found evidence that harassers minimize outrage by covering up the actions, devaluing the target, reinterpreting the events, using official channels to give an appearance of justice, and intimidating or bribing people involved. Targets can respond using countertactics of exposure, validation, reframing, mobilization of support, and resistance. Although there are limitations to using judicial decisions as a source of information, our study points to the value of studying tactics and the importance to harassers of minimizing outrage from their actions. The findings also highlight that, given the limitations of statutory and organizational protections in reducing the incidence and severity of sexual harassment in the community, individual responses may be effective as part of a multilevel response in reducing the incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment as a gendered harm.