A Estratégia Institucional do Supremo Tribunal Federal no Processo Legislativo

Conteúdo do artigo principal

Fernando Bentes Bentes

Resumo

A Constituição Federal brasileira fixou um desenho estrutural de competências que permite uma ampla atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre a vida social e os ramos de governo. No entanto, a análise da teoria institucionalista estratégica sobre os julgados relativos ao processo legislativo federal demonstra que não há um panorama assimétrico entre os departamentos estatais. Na verdade, o jogo entre poderes pode criar cenários conjunturais que libertam decisões baseadas na preferência individual dos julgadores ou que restringem a autonomia da Corte quando críticas ou retaliações externas ameaçam sua permanência e autoridade.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Detalhes do artigo

Como Citar
BENTES, Fernando Bentes. A Estratégia Institucional do Supremo Tribunal Federal no Processo Legislativo. Revista Brasileira de Filosofia do Direito, Florianopolis, Brasil, v. 2, n. 2, p. 132–153, 2016. DOI: 10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2526-012X/2016.v2i2.1476. Disponível em: https://indexlaw.org/index.php/filosofiadireito/article/view/1476. Acesso em: 18 nov. 2024.
Seção
Artigos
Biografia do Autor

Fernando Bentes Bentes, Universidade Presidente Antônio Carlos - UNIPAC.

Doutor em Direito Constitucional e Teoria do Estado pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Professor do Mestrado em Direito pela Universidade Presidente Antônio Carlos (UNIPAC), Barbacena, Minas Gerais, Brasil.

Referências

-BAUM, Lawrence. “Recruitment and Motivations of Supreme Court Justices”.In: CORNELL, W. Clayton; GILLMAN, Howard. (ORG.) In: Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999,

-BRINKS, Daniel. “Files Servidores del Regimen. El Papel de la Corte Constitucional de Brasil bajo a la Constituición de 1988.” In: Coord. FIGUEROA, Julio Ríos; HELMKE, Gretchen. Tribunales Constitucionales en América Latina. Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, 2010

-BYBBE, Keith, “Democratic Theory and Race Conscious Redistricting” In: CLAYTON, Cornell. GILLMAN, Howard. The Supreme Court in American Politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999

-CLARK, Tom S. “The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy.” In: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 4, October 2009.

-CLAYTON, Cornell. “The Supreme Court and Political Jurisprudence: New and Old Institutionalisms”. In: CORNELL, W. Clayton; GILLMAN, Howard. (ORG.) Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

-CORWIN, Edward. The Twilight of the Supreme Court. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934.

-DAVIDSON, Roger H. “What Judges Ought to Know about Congress.” In: Towards Institutional Comity. Washington D. C.: The Brooking Institute, 1988, pp. 96-102 e 110.

-DAVIS, Sue, DAVIS, Sue. “The Chief Justice and the Judicial Decision-Making: The Institutional Basis for Leadership on the Supreme Court.” In: CORNELL, W. Clayton; GILLMAN, Howard. (ORG.) Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

-EPSTEIN, Lee. KNIGHT, Jack, EPSTEIN, Lee. KNIGHT, Jack. “Mapping Out the Strategic Terrain: The Informational Role of Amicus Curiae”. In: CORNELL, W. Clayton; GILLMAN, Howard. (ORG.) Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

-ESKRIDGE, William N. Jr., "Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions" (1991). In: The Yale Law Journal Vol. 101: 331.

-FEREJOHN, John A.; KRAMER, Larry. “Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint” In: 77 N.Y.U. Law Review Rev. 962, 2002.

-HARVEY, Anna; FRIEDMAN, Barry, “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000” In: Legislative Studies Quaterly, XXXI, 4, November 2006.

-HELMKE, Gretchen; STATON, Jeffrey K., HELMKE, Gretchen; STATON, Jeffrey K. “El Rompecabezas de la Política Judicial em América Latina: uma Teoria sobre el Litigio, las Decisiones Judiciales y los Conflitos entre Poderes.” In: FIGUEROA, Julio Ríos; HELMKE, Gretchen. Tribunales Constitucionales en América Latina. Mexico: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, 2010.

-MALTZMAN, Forrest; SPRIGGS II, James; WAHLBECK, Paul J. “Strategy and Judicial choice: New Institutionalist Approaches to Supreme Court Decision-Making.” In: CORNELL, W. Clayton; GILLMAN, Howard. (ORG.) Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

-ROGERS, James, “Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of Legislative-Judicial Interpretation.” In: American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 45, nº 1, jan., 2001.

-SEGAL, Jeffrey; LINDQUIST, Stefanie A. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model.” In: American Journal of Political Science, nº 480, Setembro, 2010.

-______________ “Supreme Court Deference to Congress: An Examination of the Marksist Model.” In: CORNELL, W. Clayton; GILLMAN, Howard. (ORG.).Supreme Court Decision Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999

-_______________; SPAETH, Harold J. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002

-________________. “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts.” In: The American Political Science Review, vol. 91, nº 1, Mar., 1997.

-SPILLER, Pablo T.; RICHMAN, Barack; BERGARA, Mario. “Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint” In: Legislative Studies Quaterly, XXVIII, 2, May 2003.

-WEINGAST, B.; MARSHALL, W. “The Industrial Organization of Congress.” In: Journal of Political Economy, 96, 1988.

-VANBERG, Georg. “Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Constitutional Review”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 2, April 2001.