Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito |
Texto Completo: | https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/146 |
Resumo: | What are the constitutional issues forgotten by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) for the non-inclusion ofcases to be heard on trial agenda? Can Justices’ characteristics influence the inclusion of the direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs) on trial agenda? The Court has demonstrated, over the past twenty years, a cooperative trend with the interests of the executive branch, when triggered by constitutional control mechanisms (judicial review), whether confirming the constitutionality of legislation, or simply and informally not deciding on a large number of cases. The original data collected from the Supreme Court decisions in judging direct actions of unconstitutionality point in the self-restraint direction: their abstention excludes constitutional checks, modifies the regional federative relationships and gives a degree of freedom to the legislature in the absence of judicial review of their activities. In this sense, a random sample of ADIs was collected from the Supreme Court’s website and submitted to statistical analysis by logistic regression in order to explain the restraint judicial behavior. |
id |
RPED-1_9ad20a7cbfd8770690233eed48cf314e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/146 |
network_acronym_str |
RPED-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement Litígios esquecidos: Análise empírica dos processos de controle concentrado de constitucionalidade aguardando julgamentoWhat are the constitutional issues forgotten by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) for the non-inclusion ofcases to be heard on trial agenda? Can Justices’ characteristics influence the inclusion of the direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs) on trial agenda? The Court has demonstrated, over the past twenty years, a cooperative trend with the interests of the executive branch, when triggered by constitutional control mechanisms (judicial review), whether confirming the constitutionality of legislation, or simply and informally not deciding on a large number of cases. The original data collected from the Supreme Court decisions in judging direct actions of unconstitutionality point in the self-restraint direction: their abstention excludes constitutional checks, modifies the regional federative relationships and gives a degree of freedom to the legislature in the absence of judicial review of their activities. In this sense, a random sample of ADIs was collected from the Supreme Court’s website and submitted to statistical analysis by logistic regression in order to explain the restraint judicial behavior.Quais são os temas constitucionais esquecidos pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), em virtude da não inclusão de processos em pauta de julgamento? Como as características dos ministros relatores podeminfluenciar em tal inclusão das ações diretas de inconstitucionalidade (ADIs)? A Corte vem demonstrando, ao longo dos últimos vinte anos, uma tendência cooperativa com os interesses do Poder Executivo,quando acionada pelos mecanismos de controle de constitucionalidade (revisão judicial), seja confirmando a constitucionalidade da legislação, seja ainda simplesmente deixando informalmente de julgarum grande número de conflitos. Os dados originais coletados das decisões tomadas pelo STF no julgamento de ações diretas de inconstitucionalidadeapontam na direção da autorrestrição, e essa respectiva abstenção exclui os freios constitucionais, modifica as relações federativas regionais e confere certo grau de liberdade ao legislador diante da ausência deperspectiva de controle judicial de suas atividades. Nesse sentido, uma amostra aleatória de ADIs foi colhida do sítio eletrônico do STF e submetida à análise estatística por regressão logística com o objetivo deexplicar o comportamento abstensivo judicial. Rede de Estudos Empíricos em Direito2017-05-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/14610.19092/reed.v4i2.146Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies; Vol. 4 No. 2 (2017): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesRevista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito; v. 4 n. 2 (2017): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito2319-081710.19092/reed.v4i2reponame:Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direitoinstname:Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)instacron:RPEDporhttps://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/146/pdf_4GOMES NETO, JOSE MARIO WANDERLEYFEITOSA, RAYMUNDO JULIANO DO REGOdos Santos Filho, Moacir FerreiraPacífico, Natália Maria Grassano Caldasinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2020-07-05T16:22:55Zoai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/146Revistahttps://reedrevista.org/reedONGhttps://reedrevista.org/reed/oaimvchein@gmail.com||reed.revista@gmail.com2319-08172319-0817opendoar:2020-07-05T16:22:55Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito - Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement Litígios esquecidos: Análise empírica dos processos de controle concentrado de constitucionalidade aguardando julgamento |
title |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement |
spellingShingle |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement GOMES NETO, JOSE MARIO WANDERLEY |
title_short |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement |
title_full |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement |
title_fullStr |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement |
title_full_unstemmed |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement |
title_sort |
Forgotten disputes: empirical analysis of concentrate judicial review cases waiting for judgement |
author |
GOMES NETO, JOSE MARIO WANDERLEY |
author_facet |
GOMES NETO, JOSE MARIO WANDERLEY FEITOSA, RAYMUNDO JULIANO DO REGO dos Santos Filho, Moacir Ferreira Pacífico, Natália Maria Grassano Caldas |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
FEITOSA, RAYMUNDO JULIANO DO REGO dos Santos Filho, Moacir Ferreira Pacífico, Natália Maria Grassano Caldas |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
GOMES NETO, JOSE MARIO WANDERLEY FEITOSA, RAYMUNDO JULIANO DO REGO dos Santos Filho, Moacir Ferreira Pacífico, Natália Maria Grassano Caldas |
description |
What are the constitutional issues forgotten by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) for the non-inclusion ofcases to be heard on trial agenda? Can Justices’ characteristics influence the inclusion of the direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs) on trial agenda? The Court has demonstrated, over the past twenty years, a cooperative trend with the interests of the executive branch, when triggered by constitutional control mechanisms (judicial review), whether confirming the constitutionality of legislation, or simply and informally not deciding on a large number of cases. The original data collected from the Supreme Court decisions in judging direct actions of unconstitutionality point in the self-restraint direction: their abstention excludes constitutional checks, modifies the regional federative relationships and gives a degree of freedom to the legislature in the absence of judicial review of their activities. In this sense, a random sample of ADIs was collected from the Supreme Court’s website and submitted to statistical analysis by logistic regression in order to explain the restraint judicial behavior. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-05-17 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/146 10.19092/reed.v4i2.146 |
url |
https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/146 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.19092/reed.v4i2.146 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/146/pdf_4 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Rede de Estudos Empíricos em Direito |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Rede de Estudos Empíricos em Direito |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies; Vol. 4 No. 2 (2017): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito; v. 4 n. 2 (2017): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito 2319-0817 10.19092/reed.v4i2 reponame:Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito instname:Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED) instacron:RPED |
instname_str |
Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED) |
instacron_str |
RPED |
institution |
RPED |
reponame_str |
Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito |
collection |
Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito - Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
mvchein@gmail.com||reed.revista@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1799138703099035648 |