scholarly journals The Supreme Federal Court as Queen of Chess: Partisan Fragmentation and Judicial Empowerment in Brazil

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (73) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon Victor de Queiroz Barbosa ◽  
Ernani Carvalho
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Multinomial Models ◽  
Institutional Power ◽  
Synthetic Indicator ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Party Composition ◽  
Federal Supreme

ABSTRACT Introduction: This article deals with the Supreme Federal Court’s empowerment trajectory, exploring exogenous variables in order to explain what made the Supreme Court so institutionally powerful, and how it happened. After the classic studies on the global expansion of the judicial power, that pointed to a myriad of causes as a result of the phenomenon, several recent researches have indicated the political-party fragmentation as the main cause of judicial empowerment. Seeking to corroborate these analyses, the present work analyzes the institutional empowerment of the Brazilian Judiciary from 1945 to 2015, testing the hypothesis the greater the party fragmentation, more institutional power the STF holds. Materials and Methods: As a dependent variable, a synthetic indicator was created to measure the institutional power of the Federal Supreme Court year by year. The independent variables measure the party composition of the Chamber of Deputies annually for the same period. In addition to these variables, other measures were imported from the V-Dem database. For this analysis, simple linear, generalized linear and multinomial models were used. Results: We identified significant impact of party fragmentation on institutional empowerment of the Supreme Court. In all tests, party fragmentation increased the chances of institutional empowerment of the Brazilian judiciary. Discussion: The exogenous reforms that generated this empowerment took place with the support of the Executive and the leniency of the Legislative, transforming the Brazilian Supreme Court into the Queen of the Chess.

scholarly journals Supremas Cortes e Efeito Backlash: o Caso das “Vaquejadas” no Brasil

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 273-290
Author(s):  
Saul Tourinho Leal ◽  
Nara Pinheiro Reis Ayres de Britto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
National Congress ◽  
The Times ◽  
Constitutional Analysis ◽  
Federal Supreme

Could the object of a law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court be reintroduced into the legal system this time through an amendment to the Constitution? And if this amendment is based on elements protected by the Constitution, such as cultural manifestations? The Federal Constitution of 1988 brings in its art. 2nd the separation of the Powers as an explicit stone clause. Could an amendment that admits a constitutionally based exception subscribe to a practice considered by the Supreme Court as capable of subjecting animals to cruelty? The evolution of the times and social and cultural advances are part of the transformation of society itself and this transformation can take place in accordance with the Constitution, and the Supreme Federal Court, in the exercise of its duty to guard the Constitution, preserve the stone clauses notably in the face of political initiatives that try to overcome the transformative effect inherent to the effects of the full exercise of the not majority character of constitutional jurisdiction. Thus, the present work aims to make a constitutional analysis, through bibliographic, legislative and jurisprudential review methodology of the practice of the so-called “vaquejadas” in Brazil and its consequences from a decision taken by the Federal Supreme Court that gave rise to an immediate political reaction through the approval of a constitutional amendment by the National Congress.

scholarly journals Inércia Legislativa e Ativismo Judicial: A Dinâmica da Separação dos Poderes na Ordem Constitucional Brasileira / Legislative Inaction and Judicial Activism: the Dynamics of Separation of Powers in the Brazilian Constitutional Order

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glauco Salomão Leite
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Political ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Dimensional Approach ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Do So

Resumo:O trabalho analisa o movimento rumo ao ativismo judicial por parte do Supremo Tribunal Federal no julgamento dos mandados de injunção. A partir de uma abordagem neutra, institucional e multidimensional do ativismo judicial, investiga qual tem sido a postura do Tribunal na fiscalização das omissões inconstitucionais. Para tanto, avalia seus precedentes judiciais, identificando que o STF tem realizado uma nova configuração na relação institucional com o Poder Legislativo. Conclui ressaltando que a Corte se reconhece como órgão legítimo para avançar sobre o sistema político quando este negligencia seu dever de legislar.Palavras-chave: Ativismo judicial; Omissões normativas; Separação dos poderes.Abstract:The paper analyzes the movement toward judicial activism by the Federal Supreme Court in the trial of mandatory of injunction. From a neutral, institutional and multi-dimensional approach to judicial activism, investigates what has been the attitude of the Court in the surveillance of unconstitutional omissions. In order to do so, evaluates its judicial precedents, certifying that the Supreme Court has made a new setting in the institutional relationship with the Legislature power. Concludes pointing that the Court has recognized itself as legitimate branch to move forward on the political system when it neglects its duty to legislate.Keywords: Judicial activism; Legislative omissions; Separation of powers.

The tenure of English judges

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Object ◽  
William Iii ◽  
Science Association

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

Judicial Power in a Political World

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Crowe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Rhetoric ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Institution Building ◽  
Political Arena ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Relationship

This concluding chapter synthesizes the book's main findings about the architectonic politics of judicial institution building and contextualizes them within contemporary debates. It also reflects upon the lessons of the more than 200-year historical lineage of the institutional judiciary for our understanding of judicial power in America. More specifically, it considers the place of the federal judiciary in America's past and future in empirical and normative terms, respectively. It argues that both political rhetoric and academic exegesis about the Supreme Court embody a fundamentally incorrect presumption about the judiciary being external to politics, and that such presumption leads to a series of misconceptions about the relationship between judicial power and democratic politics. The chapter offers a conception that not only locates the judicial branch squarely within the political arena but also places substantially greater emphasis on its cooperation rather than conflict with other actors and institutions in that arena.

DIN-U DEVLET ALL OVER AGAIN? THE POLITICS OF MILITARY SECULARISM AND RELIGIOUS MILITARISM IN TURKEY FOLLOWING THE 1980 COUP

2002 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Political ◽  
Military Establishment ◽  
Turkish Republic ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Parties ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
Two Sides

Current discussions on the political developments in Turkey frequently frame the struggles between the military and religious parties as a war between secularism and Islam and draw out incommensurable differences between the two sides. Indeed, the military establishment, which casts itself as the guardian of the secular republic, succeeded in 1997 in having the Supreme Court ban the Welfare Party, the first openly religious party ever to form a government in the Turkish Republic. The generals justified this seemingly undemocratic move by claiming that that this party was trying to reinstate the sacred shari[ayin]a law.

The developmental history of solitary and supermax confinement: toward a phenomenology of the state of exception

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Polizzi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Order ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
The Political ◽  
Developmental History ◽  
Giorgio Agamben ◽  
Attitudes And Behaviors ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of

The phenomenology of solitary and supermax confinement reflects what Giorgio Agamben has defined as the state of exception. The state of exception is defined as the blurring of the legal and political order, which constructs a zone of indifference for those forced to endure this situation. This notion of the state of exception can be applied to the zone of indifference created by the Supreme Court, which seems unwilling to outlaw this harmful practice relative to 8th Amendment protections prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment and the political order which is all too inclined to continue use strategy. One of the central aspects of this “ecology of harm”, is the way in which the very structures of this type of confinement, helps to invite and legitimize abusive attitudes and behaviors in penitentiary staff.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document