A Desconstrução Semântica da Supremacia Judicial e a Necessária Afirmação do Judicial Review: uma análise a partir da democracia deliberativa de Habermas e Nino

The judicial supremacy can be characterized as the doctrine that underlies the possibility of the supreme court to say, according with its vision of the constitutional text, what the law is conclusively. This paper assumes that the theory of deliberative democracy, by to postulating a decentralized... Deskribapen osoa

Egile nagusia: Caballero Lois, Cecília
Beste egile batzuk: Lima Marques, Gabriel
Formatua: Artikulua
Hizkuntza: Portugalera
Argitaratua: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) 2013
Gaiak:
Sarrera elektronikoa: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4425664
Etiketak: Erantsi etiketa bat
Etiketarik gabe, Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen!
Azalaren irudirik gabe QR Kodea
Gorde:
Laburpena: The judicial supremacy can be characterized as the doctrine that underlies the possibility of the supreme court to say, according with its vision of the constitutional text, what the law is conclusively. This paper assumes that the theory of deliberative democracy, by to postulating a decentralized model of society, constructed intersubjectively through an open discussion among the various political and social actors, can also be used as a critical theory to judicial supremacy. Thus, using the Gargarella studies this article will look, based on his vision of deliberative democracy to demonstrate that judicial supremacy is harmful to democracy, because the it removes citizens from the final decision of most important social issues, and transfers them to a supreme political power.