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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Caballero Lois, Cecília, Lima Marques, Gabriel
Format: Article
Language:Portuguese
Published: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) 2013
Subjects:
Democracia
Teoria Deliberativa
Supremacia Judicial
Democracy
Deliberative Theory
Judicial Supremacy
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=4425664
Source:Seqüência: estudos jurídicos e políticos, ISSN 2177-7055, Vol. 34, Nº. 66, 2013, pags. 113-136
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
A Desconstrução Semântica da Supremacia Judicial e a Necessária Afirmação do Judicial Review: uma análise a partir da democracia deliberativa de Habermas e Nino
Summary: 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.

Similar Items