Judicial Activism and Juristocracy: Barroso’s Decision on Abortion as a Paradigm of Self-Grounded Power – Murillo Gutier

Murillo Gutier | murillo@gutier.adv.br


Abstract

This study examines the farewell vote of Justice Luís Roberto Barroso favoring the decriminalization of abortion up to the twelfth week, investigating three phenomena frequently noted in specialized literature: judicial activism, juristocracy, and ministrocracy. The first refers to the overcoming of positive normative frameworks through extralegal reasons — moral, political, or ethical views of the adjudicator — culminating in decisionism. The second, in institutional terms, describes the judicial capture of politically sensitive decisions previously reserved to democratic deliberation. The third highlights the intense monocratic activity at the Supremo Tribunal Federal, which empties out collegiality and weakens the deliberative virtues proper to a constitutional court.

From this framing, the analyzed vote is shown to exceed the typical countermajoritarian function of judicial review — guardian of constitutional supremacy — and to invade the sphere of political conformation reserved to the legislator, converting individual valuative preferences into normative parameters. The critical point does not reside in the substantive theme in dispute, but in the method of decision: when reasons not extracted from the constitutional text or the law come to govern the outcome, jurisdiction ceases to operate as a limit and begins to act as an autonomous source of normative production, with effects on individual liberties and on the very separation of powers.

The study articulates the concrete case to the theoretical categories mentioned and confronts a relevant element of the Supremo Tribunal Federal itself: the idea of the eloquent silence of the legislator, whereby the deliberate absence of normative regulation may express a valid political choice to await the maturation of the social debate. The purpose is to circumscribe the examination to verifiable institutional questions, making explicit the methodological criteria that guide the analysis — textuality and structure of the Constitution, coherence with consolidated jurisprudence, standard of deference to the Legislature, and observance of collegiality.

Keywords: Judicial Activism; Juristocracy; Ministrocracy; Separation of Powers; Decisionism; Self-Grounded Power; Eloquent Silence; Democratic Legitimacy; Supreme Federal Court (STF).


Judicial Activism and Juristocracy – Murillo Gutier (564 downloads )

Between the Lighthouse and the Labyrinth: Estrutura procedimental e classificação das sentenças – Murillo Gutier

Between the Lighthouse and the Labyrinth

Superior Courts as Supreme Courts and the Paradoxes of the Precedent-Based Model in Brazilian Law

Murillo Gutier | murillo@gutier.adv.br


Abstract

This article critically examines the Supreme Court model proposed by Daniel Mitidiero, Luiz Guilherme Marinoni, and Hermes Zaneti Jr. within the context of Brazilian procedural law. The model advocates for transforming the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) into Supreme Courts endowed with the power to issue binding precedents of a prospective nature. Drawing upon the philosophical critique of Eduardo José da Fonseca Costa and the democratic procedural theory of Rosemiro Pereira Leal, the article identifies six internal paradoxes that undermine the model’s sustainability in light of the Federal Constitution of 1988: (1) incompatibility with the constitutional function of the Superior Courts as appellate review tribunals; (2) the establishment of an interpretive monopoly as an instrument of normative domination; (3) the reduction of judicial proceedings to instruments of authority rather than democracy; (4) the treatment of the concrete case as a mere pretext for the creation of abstract norms; (5) the impossibility of reviewing precedents and the consequent petrification of law; and (6) the legislative importation of a cultural and juridical “mode of being” that Brazil does not yet possess. The article concludes that a constitutionally adequate theory of precedents must be grounded in democratic legitimacy, procedural participation, and respect for the concrete case, rather than in the vertical imposition of norms detached from social and historical reality.

Keywords: Supreme Courts; Binding Precedents; Democratic Legitimacy; Brazilian Procedural Law; Constitutional Function; Paradoxes of the Precedent Model.


Between the Lighthouse and the Labyrinth - Murillo Gutier (780 downloads )