| dc.description.abstract | Following a worldwide tendency, Brazilian constitutionalism is characterized by the important role of the Judicial power in defining social and political controversies. In this context, the role of judges and courts can be understood as twofold: as judicialization of politics or judicial activism. This study intends to question the assertion that is necessary to have an activist judiciary to confer rights in Brazil, which is a predominant position within the constitutional legal scholarship by differentiating these two ways of conceiving judicial review - the first as a contingent and inexorable phenomenon, and the second as a posture that results from an act of will of the judge. To achieve this purpose, the study inquiries the revival of American legal and political theories, that influenced Brazilian law, alongside the extensive/comprehensive debate on the subject in the United States since the establishment of judicial review (in 1803). Within this perspective, the study elaborates on the consequences of this mistakenly incorporation of American concept of judicial activism in Brazil, highlighting the importance of observing the peculiarities caused by the distance that exists between these two legal traditions. Finally, this will lead to the assertion that an activist judiciary represents a problem to democratic constitutionalism, which can only be tackled with a theory of judicial decision, as developed by the Hermeneutical Critics of Law (HCD) developed by Lenio Streck, with an overlapping of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Ronald Dworkin, culminates in the premise of the necessity of right answers in law, understood as constitutionally adequate judgments. | en |
