[pt] O presente trabalho, por meio do método reconstrutivo de abordagem, investiga recentes alterações performáticas (2007-2008) do Supremo Tribunal Federal como indicadoras de ativismo judicial. Para tanto, realiza uma revisão bibliográfica sobre o conceito de ativismo judicial no âmbito das jurisdições constitucionais, constatando a versatilidade semântica da expressão, conforme o modelo que se adote de jurisdição constitucional. Sob o prisma de uma teoria discursiva do Direito, a pesquisa propõe critérios para a identificação de ativismo judicial nas jurisdições constitucionais. Reconstruindo um sistema analítico de conceitos, a pesquisa obtém instrumentos para proceder à análise de discursos recentes do Supremo Tribunal Federal, finda a qual, identifica, com os critérios anteriormente propostos, a presença do fenômeno estudado. São, ainda, levantadas possíveis causas para as recentes alterações performáticas do Tribunal e, em vias de conclusão, apontam-se objeções ao perfil ativista do Supremo Tribunal Federal. / [en] The current work, by means of the reconstructive method of approach, investigates recent performative alterations (2007-2008) of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Supreme Court of Brazil) as signs of judicial activism. Thus, it carries through a bibliographical review of the concept of judicial activism in the scope of the constitutional jurisdictions, evidencing the semantic versatility of the expression, according to the model of constitutional jurisdiction that is adopted. Under the prism of a discursive theory of Law, the research considers criteria for the identification of judicial activism in the constitutional jurisdictions. Reconstructing an analytical system of concepts, it provides instruments to proceed to the analysis of recent speeches of the Supremo Tribunal Federal. At the conclusion of the analysis, the presence of the studied phenomenon is identified, with the criteria previously considered. Possible causes for the recent per formative alterations of the Court are, still, raised and, in summation, objections to the activist profile inaugurated by the Supreme Federal Court are pointed out.

abstract: In recent decades, the United States has experienced a wave of immigration, an economic recession, and several terroristic attacks. In response, the government has scapegoated and blamed undocumented immigrants of color for recent social ills. As a result, a large share of government resources has been allocated to the enforcement and processing of immigration violations. Consequently, the number of immigration cases processed in U.S. federal courts has spiraled to nearly 50% of bookings and 34% of federal sentencing cases. Yet, immigration offenses have received little empirical attention in the courts and sentencing literature due in part to differences in the way immigration offenses are processed compared to other federal offense types, and relatedly, the empirical difficulties immigration offenses pose for analysis. Nevertheless, the increased representation of immigration offenses in federal courts, along with the punitive rhetoric and heightened social control targeting undocumented immigrants of color, warrants a comprehensive assessment of how immigration cases are processed in U.S. federal courts. Accordingly, this dissertation seeks to identify inequality in the processing of immigration cases by examining: 1) cumulative disadvantage within immigration cases; 2) contextual disparity and how social context interacts with ethnicity to influence multiple federal court outcomes within immigration cases; and 3) ethnic disparity within immigration cases over time. Data come from the Federal Justice Statistics Program Data Series, the U.S. Census, the Uniform Crime Reports, Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the National Judicial Center, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The quantitative analysis addresses the first question by employing a cumulative disadvantage approach where multiple decision points are considered and the effects of prior stages on subsequent outcomes. The quantitative analysis proceeds to address the second question by using multilevel modeling for multiple court outcomes. The longitudinal analysis is separately conducted on sentence length for 18-year data, from 1994 through 2012, to assess racial and ethnic disparity over time. The results indicate that cumulative disadvantage is present within immigration cases, that social context influences certain decision points, and that ethnic disparity has diminished over time in some districts. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Criminology and Criminal Justice 2018

[pt] Como o Supremo Tribunal Federal reconstrói a relação entre Estado e Cidadania no Brasil contemporâneo, especialmente no que diz respeito à democracia nacional? Com apoio em dois modelos teóricos sobre a democracia, o elitismo democrático e os públicos participativos, a dissertação investigou o discurso público produzido pelo STF ao julgar determinados casos, identificando indícios de abuso de poder discursivo pela Corte nos mesmos. O referido abuso de poder discursivo é caracterizado pela influência do marco teórico do elitismo democrático e seu consequente potencial de reproduzir e reforçar desenho institucional servil ao repertório de ação não universalizável da elite política nacional. / [en] How the Brazilian Supreme Court (BSC) reconstructs the relation between State and Citizenship in contemporary Brazil, especially concerning the national democracy? The public discourse manufactured by the BSC whilst deciding certain cases was investigated through the lenses of two theoretical models of democracy, democratic elitism and participatory publics, in search for evidences of discourse power abuse. Such abuse is characterized by the influence of the democratic elitism framework and its potential to reproduce and reinforce an institutional design unable to counteract the problematic action repertoir of the Brazilian political elite.

[pt] O controle judicial de constitucionalidade teve sua origem nos Estados Unidos com o julgamento de Marbury v. Madison, em 1803. A partir de uma análise histórica do desenvolvimento desse precedente e do desenvolvimento do judicial review no referido paí­s, bem como do nascimento da jurisdição constitucional européia de matiz kelseniano, demonstra-se a expansão da atividade judicial para searas não originariamente imaginadas pelos ideólogos do controle de constitucionalidade das leis pelo Judiciário. Conceitua-se então o fenômeno como ativismo judicial e, após, distingue-se-o, assim, em ativismo judicial de í­ndole material ou substantiva do de aspecto processual ou formal. Tendo, desse modo, como premissa a historicidade do controle judicial de constitucionalidade e a influência que os modelos americano e europeucontinental lograram no Brasil, analisa-se a expansão da atividade jurisprudencial do Supremo Tribunal Federal nos últimos anos, seja pelo alargamento dos limites de sua competência constitucional seja pela extensão temporal e funcional dos efeitos de suas decisões, como resultado de um ativismo judicial de caráter processual. / [en] Judicial review of legislation originated in the United States of America with the ruling in the Marbury v. Madison case, back in 1803. The expansion of judicial activity into domains not originally imagined by the ideologues of judicial review will be expounded by means of a retrospective analysis of doctrine and case-law arising from said ruling in the USA, as well as of the rise of Kelsenfashioned constitutional adjudication in Europe. Such phenomenon is herein conceptualized as judicial activism and henceforth marked as material or substantive judicial activism as distinct from the procedural or formal type. Premised, thus, on the historical nature of judicial review and the influence of both the American and the European models have born on Brazil, an analysis is made of the expansion of Supremo Tribunal Federal adjudication in Brazil in the past few years, be it through the widening of its constitutional jurisdiction, be it through the enlargement both in duration and in function of the effects of its rulings as a result of procedural-based judicial activism.

No início do presente trabalho, foi elaborado um histórico do Supremo Tribunal Federal e do recurso extraordinário, além de se traçar alguns aspectos sobre o papel da Corte na atualidade, resultado das mudanças sociais aspiradas pela Constituição de 1988 e de recentes reformas legislativas. Se, por um lado, o constituinte originário pretendeu ampliar o acesso à Justiça, não menos verdade é que a realidade acabou por demonstrar a insuficiência do modelo então vigente para dar respostas adequadas e céleres aos jurisdicionados. O Poder Judiciário brasileiro carece de importantes reformas procedimentais, com o objetivo de atribuir maior eficácia às decisões dos Tribunais Superiores, e, assim, desestimular a interposição de recursos a respeito de questões já sedimentadas. Neste contexto foi que se introduziram os institutos da súmula vinculante e da repercussão geral das questões constitucionais, este último como requisito de admissibilidade do recurso extraordinário. Ao longo do segundo capítulo, houve a apresentação dos institutos antecedentes da repercussão geral (introduzida pela Emenda Constitucional nº 45/2004), como a arguição de relevância vigente sob a Constituição de 1967, a transcendência do direito trabalhista (artigo 896-A da CLT), o certiorari do direito norte-americano e a ofensa federal relevante do direito argentino, além de outras experiências do direito estrangeiro. Detendo-se acerca da repercussão geral, no terceiro capítulo foram identificados alguns critérios adotados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal nos julgamentos até o momento realizados, além de esclarecidas algumas noções fundamentais, como a natureza do provimento jurisdicional dele decorrente. No quarto e quinto capítulos foram apresentadas as principais questões procedimentais a respeito do exame da repercussão geral. Relativamente ao julgamento de recursos múltiplos previsto no artigo 543-B, §§ 3º e 4º, do CPC, também se estudou em que medida estará o Tribunal de origem vinculado à decisão a ser proferida pelo STF. Por fim, verificou-se se tais normas estão em harmonia com o sistema processual vigente, notadamente em relação aos princípios e garantias processuais presentes na Constituição da República de 1988. / The beginning of this work presents a background of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court and the extraordinary appeal. It also presents an outline of the Court\'s current role, which is a result of the social changes aimed by the 1988 Brazilian Constitution and by recent legislative reforms. The original constituent primarily intended to expand the access to justice, but reality revealed that the operative model at the time was insufficient to respond swiftly and adequately to those under it jurisdiction. Brazilian Judiciary needs important procedural reforms in order to bring effectiveness to the decisions of the Supreme Courts and consequently discourage appeals against settled questions. The binding precedent and the general repercussion on constitutional subjects the latter being the admissibility requirement of the extraordinary appeal were introduced in this context. Through the second chapter, there is the presentation of the institutes previous to the general repercussion (introduced by the Constitutional Amendment 45/2004), such as the allegation of relevance operative on the 1967 Constitution, the labor law transcendence (article 896-A of the Brazilian Labor Code), the certiorari from the North-American Law system and the relevant federal offense from the Argentinian Law system, among other experiences from foreign Law systems. With regard to the general repercussion, the third chapter identifies some criteria adopted by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court on its trials up to the present and sets forth some fundamental notions, such as the nature of the jurisdictional provision. The fourth and fifth chapters present the main procedural issues regarding the analysis of the general repercussion. They also study to what extent the court of origin is bound by the decision delivered by the Federal Supreme Court regarding multiple appeal judgments, as established by article 543-B, sections 3rd and 4th of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, this work verifies whether such norms are in harmony with the current procedural system, notably regarding procedural principles and safeguards from the 1988 Brazilian Constitution.

The Social Security Act 1991 incorporates the general legal meaning of property in its definition of an asset, for the purpose of the pension means test. This creates the opportunity for pension applicants to argue that assessable assets held by them should be reduced by the amount of any equitable proprietry rights held by others in the assets. The Federal Court has held in Kintominas v Secretary, DSS and in Kidner v Secretary, DSS that equitable proprietry claims under remedial doctrines, such as under the constructive trust doctrine discussed in Baumgartner v Baumgartner are to be regarded as property even though there has been no judicial declaration of their existence, no dispute between the legal owner and the person claiming an equitabe interest, an no unconscionable abuse of title rights by the legal owner. This thesis argues that the Federal Court’s approach is not the preferable one, for three main reasons. The first relates to the changing nature of the constructive trust to a necessary element. The second is that, at a time when the constructive trust in Australia is in transition from the traditional institutional conception to a remedial paradigm along North American lines, the beneficial interest should no longer be viewed as existing independently of a judicial decree. The third argument is that, even if an equitable interest under a remedial constructive trust is accepted as existing independently of a curial declaration, it cannot be valued for the purposes of the assets test.

[pt] O presente trabalho tem por foco primordial a demonstração do caráter antidemocrático da judicialização da política. Para tanto, parte-se de uma análise crítico-descritiva dos principais teóricos que se posicionam contra – reunidos no denominado eixo analítico procedimentalista – e a favor – representantes do chamado eixo explicativo substancialista – da judicialização da política, definindo-se, também, o conceito de democracia que servirá de parâmetro fundamentador dos juízos de valor a serem emitidos, a saber, o da democracia deliberativa, identificado como aquele que melhor se adéqua ao perfil das sociedades pluralistas contemporâneas. Para comprovar a constatação de que o Judiciário brasileiro tem operado a judicialização da política, citam-se alguns julgados do Supremo Tribunal Federal, como órgão representante da cúpula desse Poder, responsável pela última decisão em matéria constitucional, explicitando-se onde, como e por que essa atividade caminha de encontro aos ditames da democracia deliberativa. A título de conclusão, a participação popular no processo deliberativo democrático de formação da opinião e da vontade políticas, bem como a deferência a esse consenso discursivo pelas decisões judiciais são apontadas como a via democrática a ser trilhada. / [en] This work has as its primary focus the demonstration of the undemocratic character of judicialization of politics. Therefore, it starts up with a critical-descriptive analysis of the main theorists who are against – together termed as the proceduralist analytical axis – and in favor – representatives of the so-called substantialist explanatory axis – of the judicialization of politics, defining also the concept of democracy that will serve as the basic parameter for value judgments to be issued, namely, the deliberative democracy, identified as the one that best fits the profile of the contemporary pluralist societies. To prove the fact that the Brazilian judiciary has operated in judicialization of politics, it cites some Supremo Tribunal Federal’s (Brazilian’s Supreme Court) decisions, as the responsible for the final decision on constitutional matters, explaining where, how and why this activity goes against deliberative democracy. In conclusion, popular participation in deliberative democratic process of opinion formation and political will, and the deference to this discursive consensus by the judicial decisions are pointed as the democratic path to be trodden.

A rampant supposition exists that the judicial nominations of females are less successful due to the nominee’s gender (Martinek 2002). It is thus paramount to further investigate empirically whether individual nominee characteristics, such as gender, inhibit the nominee’s possibility of obtaining Senate confirmation. I empirically explore this conjecture in two distinct ways. First, I employ a difference in means test to determine whether women are confirmed to the District Court at a lower rate, on average, than are men. Subsequently, I test the hypothesis using a logistic regression that examines the influence of gender and the interaction of gender and race on the likelihood of confirmation, while controlling for other factors. Aiming to contribute to previous scholarship by providing an updated empirical analysis, I offer an update to Wendy Martinek’s original analysis of judicial confirmations by using the Lower Federal Court Confirmation Database to examine whether the influences of gender, race and their interaction on confirmation dynamics vary by partisan control. Having found the effect that nonwhite women are less likely to be confirmed by a GOP Senate than white males, I examine whether gender and race are the key factors or whether the relationship may instead be driven by ideology. Despite popular belief, the analysis of the data is not supportive of an extensive gender gap and undermines the claim that gender alone is an imperative factor inhibiting women from obtaining a successful confirmation. However, the empirical results are supportive of the hypothesis that racial minority females are less likely to be confirmed by a GOP controlled Senate than their white female and male counterparts.

No início do presente trabalho, foi elaborado um histórico do Supremo Tribunal Federal e do recurso extraordinário, além de se traçar alguns aspectos sobre o papel da Corte na atualidade, resultado das mudanças sociais aspiradas pela Constituição de 1988 e de recentes reformas legislativas. Se, por um lado, o constituinte originário pretendeu ampliar o acesso à Justiça, não menos verdade é que a realidade acabou por demonstrar a insuficiência do modelo então vigente para dar respostas adequadas e céleres aos jurisdicionados. O Poder Judiciário brasileiro carece de importantes reformas procedimentais, com o objetivo de atribuir maior eficácia às decisões dos Tribunais Superiores, e, assim, desestimular a interposição de recursos a respeito de questões já sedimentadas. Neste contexto foi que se introduziram os institutos da súmula vinculante e da repercussão geral das questões constitucionais, este último como requisito de admissibilidade do recurso extraordinário. Ao longo do segundo capítulo, houve a apresentação dos institutos antecedentes da repercussão geral (introduzida pela Emenda Constitucional nº 45/2004), como a arguição de relevância vigente sob a Constituição de 1967, a transcendência do direito trabalhista (artigo 896-A da CLT), o certiorari do direito norte-americano e a ofensa federal relevante do direito argentino, além de outras experiências do direito estrangeiro. Detendo-se acerca da repercussão geral, no terceiro capítulo foram identificados alguns critérios adotados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal nos julgamentos até o momento realizados, além de esclarecidas algumas noções fundamentais, como a natureza do provimento jurisdicional dele decorrente. No quarto e quinto capítulos foram apresentadas as principais questões procedimentais a respeito do exame da repercussão geral. Relativamente ao julgamento de recursos múltiplos previsto no artigo 543-B, §§ 3º e 4º, do CPC, também se estudou em que medida estará o Tribunal de origem vinculado à decisão a ser proferida pelo STF. Por fim, verificou-se se tais normas estão em harmonia com o sistema processual vigente, notadamente em relação aos princípios e garantias processuais presentes na Constituição da República de 1988. / The beginning of this work presents a background of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court and the extraordinary appeal. It also presents an outline of the Court\'s current role, which is a result of the social changes aimed by the 1988 Brazilian Constitution and by recent legislative reforms. The original constituent primarily intended to expand the access to justice, but reality revealed that the operative model at the time was insufficient to respond swiftly and adequately to those under it jurisdiction. Brazilian Judiciary needs important procedural reforms in order to bring effectiveness to the decisions of the Supreme Courts and consequently discourage appeals against settled questions. The binding precedent and the general repercussion on constitutional subjects the latter being the admissibility requirement of the extraordinary appeal were introduced in this context. Through the second chapter, there is the presentation of the institutes previous to the general repercussion (introduced by the Constitutional Amendment 45/2004), such as the allegation of relevance operative on the 1967 Constitution, the labor law transcendence (article 896-A of the Brazilian Labor Code), the certiorari from the North-American Law system and the relevant federal offense from the Argentinian Law system, among other experiences from foreign Law systems. With regard to the general repercussion, the third chapter identifies some criteria adopted by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court on its trials up to the present and sets forth some fundamental notions, such as the nature of the jurisdictional provision. The fourth and fifth chapters present the main procedural issues regarding the analysis of the general repercussion. They also study to what extent the court of origin is bound by the decision delivered by the Federal Supreme Court regarding multiple appeal judgments, as established by article 543-B, sections 3rd and 4th of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, this work verifies whether such norms are in harmony with the current procedural system, notably regarding procedural principles and safeguards from the 1988 Brazilian Constitution.

Orientador: Angela Maria Carneiro Araujo / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-10T18:44:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Pereira_MariaCristinaCardoso_D.pdf: 1630536 bytes, checksum: 9d4daf192703071fc57cf91cdf8f13a7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / Resumo: Nesta tese discuto as características e conseqüências da crescente procura da via judicial (a denominada ¿judicialização¿) para decidir questões que dizem respeito aos servidores públicos, e que poderiam ser resolvidas pela via da negociação entre Sindicatos e Estado. Analiso o período do presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2002), quando tivemos uma flexibilização generalizada dos direitos trabalhistas, tanto na esfera pública quanto privada. Com relação aos servidores públicos, observamos uma forte recusa, tanto pelo governo quanto pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, em reconhecer o direito dos Sindicatos em negociar. O mesmo acontece com o direito de greve, apesar de ser constitucionalmente garantido. Demonstro que, apesar desta recusa, houve um crescimento dos sindicatos de servidores públicos durante este período, assim como do número de greves. Uma vez que a via negociada era negada, o número de ações na justiça aumentava, e direitos coletivos importantes foram decididos pela Corte. Finalmente, analiso o Sindicato Nacional dos Docentes do Ensino Superior (ANDES-SN), uma associação muito forte e ativa, e demonstro como o impacto da judicialização é negativo para Sindicatos e servidores / Abstract: In the thesis I discuss the characteristics and consequences of the increasingly request to Courts to decide questions regarding civil servants that could be solved by negotiation between Unions and the State (the so-called ¿judicialization¿). I analyze the period of President¿s Fernando Henrique Cardoso government (1995-2002) in Brazil, when we had a general flexibilization of labor rights, both in private and public sphere. Regarding civil servants we observe a strong refuse, both by the government and the Supreme Court (STF), in recognizing the Unions¿ right to negotiate. The same happens with the right to go on strike, although it¿s a Constitutional right. I show that, in spite of this refusal, there was a grown of the Civil servants Unions during that period, as well as the number of strikes. As the negotiated via was denied, the number of demands increased and important collective rights were decided by the Court. Finally I analyze the Union representative of the Professors of Public Institutions in Brasil (ANDES-SN), a very strong and active association, and demonstrate how the impact of Judicialization is negative to the Union and the servants / Doutorado / Doutor em Ciências Sociais