Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: de Mendonça Lopes, Felipe
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Furquim de Azevedo, Paulo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Economic Analysis of law Review
Texto Completo: https://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/article/view/9240
Resumo: The prolific literature on de facto judicial independence misses a key variable to explain political bias: the government’s discretion over the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In this paper, we explore a distinct feature of the Brazilian judiciary system to assess political bias due to government appointment discretion. As there are two courts, the STF (Supreme Federal Court) and the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), that deal with similar matters and have different restrictions on the appointment of their members, it is possible to compare the degree of political influence to which they are subject. We test (1) whether there are differences in the degree of political influence depending on the president’s discretion over the nomination of a justice, and (2) whether the justices actively benefit the party of the president who has appointed them. We find evidence of the first effect, but little of the second.
id UCB-6_b2a5b4697201b928bac272d1bda17f3f
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.portalrevistas.ucb.br:article/9240
network_acronym_str UCB-6
network_name_str Economic Analysis of law Review
repository_id_str
spelling Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian CourtsJudicial independence Supreme Court appointment discretionThe prolific literature on de facto judicial independence misses a key variable to explain political bias: the government’s discretion over the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In this paper, we explore a distinct feature of the Brazilian judiciary system to assess political bias due to government appointment discretion. As there are two courts, the STF (Supreme Federal Court) and the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), that deal with similar matters and have different restrictions on the appointment of their members, it is possible to compare the degree of political influence to which they are subject. We test (1) whether there are differences in the degree of political influence depending on the president’s discretion over the nomination of a justice, and (2) whether the justices actively benefit the party of the president who has appointed them. We find evidence of the first effect, but little of the second.Universidade Católica de Brasília2018-09-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionEmpirical ResearchAvaliado por Pares; Peer Reviewedapplication/pdfhttps://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/article/view/9240Economic Analysis of Law Review; Vol. 9 No. 2 (2018): Economic Analysis of Law Review; 84-106Economic Analysis of Law Review ; Vol. 9 Núm. 2 (2018): Economic Analysis of Law Review; 84-106Economic Analysis of Law Review; v. 9 n. 2 (2018): Economic Analysis of Law Review; 84-1062178-0587reponame:Economic Analysis of law Reviewinstname:Universidade Católica de Brasília (UCB)instacron:UCBenghttps://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/article/view/9240/5851Copyright (c) 2018 Economic Analysis of Law Reviewinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessde Mendonça Lopes, FelipeFurquim de Azevedo, Paulo2023-06-15T18:36:27Zoai:ojs.portalrevistas.ucb.br:article/9240Revistahttps://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/ealrONGhttps://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/oaieditor.ealr@gmail.com||sdi@ucb.br||benjaminm.tabak@gmail.com2178-05872178-0587opendoar:2023-06-15T18:36:27Economic Analysis of law Review - Universidade Católica de Brasília (UCB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
title Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
spellingShingle Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
de Mendonça Lopes, Felipe
Judicial independence
Supreme Court
appointment discretion
title_short Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
title_full Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
title_fullStr Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
title_full_unstemmed Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
title_sort Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: Preference and Opportunistic Effects on Brazilian Courts
author de Mendonça Lopes, Felipe
author_facet de Mendonça Lopes, Felipe
Furquim de Azevedo, Paulo
author_role author
author2 Furquim de Azevedo, Paulo
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv de Mendonça Lopes, Felipe
Furquim de Azevedo, Paulo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Judicial independence
Supreme Court
appointment discretion
topic Judicial independence
Supreme Court
appointment discretion
description The prolific literature on de facto judicial independence misses a key variable to explain political bias: the government’s discretion over the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In this paper, we explore a distinct feature of the Brazilian judiciary system to assess political bias due to government appointment discretion. As there are two courts, the STF (Supreme Federal Court) and the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), that deal with similar matters and have different restrictions on the appointment of their members, it is possible to compare the degree of political influence to which they are subject. We test (1) whether there are differences in the degree of political influence depending on the president’s discretion over the nomination of a justice, and (2) whether the justices actively benefit the party of the president who has appointed them. We find evidence of the first effect, but little of the second.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-09-03
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Empirical Research
Avaliado por Pares; Peer Reviewed
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/article/view/9240
url https://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/article/view/9240
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/article/view/9240/5851
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Economic Analysis of Law Review
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Economic Analysis of Law Review
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Católica de Brasília
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Católica de Brasília
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Economic Analysis of Law Review; Vol. 9 No. 2 (2018): Economic Analysis of Law Review; 84-106
Economic Analysis of Law Review ; Vol. 9 Núm. 2 (2018): Economic Analysis of Law Review; 84-106
Economic Analysis of Law Review; v. 9 n. 2 (2018): Economic Analysis of Law Review; 84-106
2178-0587
reponame:Economic Analysis of law Review
instname:Universidade Católica de Brasília (UCB)
instacron:UCB
instname_str Universidade Católica de Brasília (UCB)
instacron_str UCB
institution UCB
reponame_str Economic Analysis of law Review
collection Economic Analysis of law Review
repository.name.fl_str_mv Economic Analysis of law Review - Universidade Católica de Brasília (UCB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv editor.ealr@gmail.com||sdi@ucb.br||benjaminm.tabak@gmail.com
_version_ 1798675420655124480