The high-ranking Judge and the issue of judicial discretion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18593/ejjl.34528Keywords:
Judicial branch, professional ethics, binding precedents, institutional dialogues, Brazilian Supreme CourtAbstract
As members of superior courts, judges who occupy the highest positions in the judicial structure are responsible not only for standardizing the understandings that guide the way in which other courts should decide, but also for having the last jurisdictional word in the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws. Considering this, the mediatic or political exposure of these judges, whenever they violate their duties of self-restraint and discretion, has a comparatively greater and longer-lasting impact, whether for the judicial system or for the political deliberation, than any excesses committed by other members of the Judiciary. In this sense, a judge's duty to act with discretion will be stricter the higher his position in the judicial structure. Despite this, the Brazilian Supreme Court understands that its members are not subordinated to any ethical-disciplinary control carried out by the National Council of Justice.
Downloads
References
ARGUELHES, Diego Werneck; LEAL, Fernando. O argumento das “capacidades institucionais” entre a banalidade, a redundância e o absurdo. Direito, Estado e Sociedade, n. 38, p. 6-50, 2011.
ARGUELHES, Diego Werneck; RIBEIRO, Leandro Molhano. O Supremo individual: mecanismos de atuação direta dos ministros sobre o processo político. Direito, Estado e Sociedade, v. 46, p. 121-55, 2015.
ARGUELHES, Diego Werneck; RIBEIRO, Leandro Molhano. Ministrocracia: o supremo tribunal individual e o processo democrático brasileiro. Novos Estudos Cebrap, v. 37, n. 1, p. 13-32, 2018.
BARROSO, Luís Roberto. O controle de constitucionalidade no direito brasileiro. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2022.
BICKEL, Alexander. The least dangerous branch: the Supreme Court at the bar of politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
BRASIL. [Constituição (1988)]. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, n. 191-A, p. 1, 5 out. 1988. Legislação Informatizada – Constituição de 1988 – Publicação Original. Disponível em: w2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/consti/1988/constituicao-1988-5-outubro-1988-322142-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Acórdão na Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade nº 3367. Brasília, DF: STF, 13 abr. 2005.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Acórdão na Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade nº 5468. Brasília, DF: STF, 30 jun. 2016.
BUSTAMANTE, Thomas da Rosa de. Teoria do precedente judicial: a justificação e a aplicação de regras jurisprudenciais. São Paulo: Noeses, 2012.
BUSTAMANTE, Thomas da Rosa de. On the difficulty to ground the authority of constitutional courts: can strong judicial review be morally justified? In: BUSTAMANTE, Thomas da Rosa de; FERNANDES, Bernardo Gonçalves A. (org.). Democratizing constitutional law: perspectives on legal theory and the legitimacy of constitutionalism. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing, p. 29-69, 2016.
CÂMARA, Alexandre Freitas. Levando os padrões decisórios a sério: formação e aplicação de precedentes e enunciados de súmula. São Paulo: Atlas, 2022.
CAPPELLETTI, Mauro. Juízes irresponsáveis? Trad. Carlos Alberto Alvaro de Oliveira. Porto Alegre: Fabris, 1989.
CAPPELLETTI, Mauro. O controle judicial de constitucionalidade das leis no direito comparado. Trad. Aroldo Plínio Gonçalves. Porto Alegre: Fabris, 1999.
DWORKIN, Ronald. A matter of principle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985.
ELY, John Hart. Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA. Suprema Corte. Acórdão em Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Washington/DC: SCOTUS, 1973.
ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA. Suprema Corte. Acórdão em Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. Washington/DC: SCOTUS, 2022.
FERNANDES, Bernardo Gonçalves A. Curso de direito constitucional. Salvador: Juspodivm, 2022.
FERNANDES, Bernardo Gonçalves A.; DANTAS, Ingrid Cunha. Constitucionalismo democrático: entre as teorias populares do constitucionalismo e um novo aporte do papel das cortes na democracia. Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR, v. 64, n. 2, p. 61-88, 2019.
FREEMAN, Samuel. Constitutional democracy and the legitimacy of judicial review. Law and philosophy, v. 9, n. 4, pp. 327-70, 1990.
FRIEDMAN, Barry. Dialogue and judicial review. Michigan Law Review, v. 91, i. 4, pp. 577-682, 1993.
GODOY, Miguel Gualano de. Devolver a Constituição ao povo: crítica à supremacia judicial e diálogos institucionais. Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2017.
HOLMES, Stephen. Precommitment and the paradox of democracy. In: ELSTER, Jon; SLAGSTAD, Rune (ed.). Constitutionalism and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-240, 1993.
MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme. Precedentes obrigatórios. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2022.
MENDES, Conrado Hübner. Controle de constitucionalidade e democracia. São Paulo: Elsevier, 2007.
MENDES, Conrado Hübner. Direitos fundamentais, separação dos poderes e deliberação. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2011.
MENDES, Conrado Hübner. Constitutional courts and deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
MEYER, Emilio Peluso Neder; CRUZ, Álvaro Ricardo de Souza; RODRIGUES, Éder Bomfim. Desafios contemporâneos do controle de constitucionalidade no Brasil. Volume 2. Belo Horizonte: Arraes, 2012.
MICHELMAN, Frank I. Brennan and democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
NUNES, Dierle José Coelho. Processo jurisdicional democrático: uma análise crítica das reformas processuais. Curitiba: Juruá, 2008.
OLIVEIRA, Mariana. Se PEC 33 passar, “melhor que se feche o Supremo”, diz Gilmar Mendes. G1 Política. Rio de Janeiro, 25 abr. 2013.
SIEGEL, Reva; POST, Robert. Roe rage: democratic constitutionalism and backlash. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, v. 42, pp. 373-433, 2007.
SIEGEL, Reva; POST, Robert. Democratic constitutionalism. In: BALKIN, Jack; SIEGEL, Reva. The Constitution in 2020. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25-35, 2009.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. Deciding without deliberating. International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 11, i. 3, pp. 557-84, 2013.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. Do we deliberate? If so, how? European Journal of Legal Studies, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 209-40, 2017.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. One case at a time: judicial minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
SUNSTEIN, Cass; VERMEULE, Adrian. Interpretation and institutions. Michigan Law Review, v. 101, n. 4, pp. 885-951, 2003.
STRECK, Lenio Luiz. Precedentes judiciais e hermenêutica: o sentido da vinculação no CPC/2015. Salvador: Juspodivm, 2022.
TUSHNET, Mark. Taking the Constitution away from the courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Law and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
WALDRON, Jeremy. The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law Journal, v. 115, n. 6, pp. 1.346-406, 2006.
WALDRON, Jeremy. A majority in the lifeboat. Boston University Law Review, v. 90, pp. 1.043-57, 2010.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Political political theory: essays on institutions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016.
ZANETI JÚNIOR, Hermes. O valor vinculante dos precedentes: teoria dos precedentes normativos formalmente vinculantes. Salvador: Juspodivm, 2017.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Rafael Patrus
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright: All manuscripts submitted become the property of the Unoesc and will not be returned to the author. It is a condition of publication that authors vest copyright in their paper, including abstracts, in the Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina - Unoesc. This enables us to ensure full copyright protection and to disseminate the paper to the widest possible readership in print and electronic formats as appropriate. Authors may, of course, use the article elsewhere after publication without prior permission from the Publishers, subject to the terms outlined on the Copyright transfer form.
