ATIVISMO JUDICIAL E JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DA POLÍTICA NO BRASIL: IMPLICAÇÕES JURÍDICO-CONSTITUCIONAIS NO EQUILÍBRIO ENTRE OS PODERES

Abstract

This work, through the inductive and deductive methods, focuses primarily on the study of the division of the three powers—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—regarding the balance of power in social life and how the emblems of postmodern politics affect this dynamic, especially in the contrast between judicial activism and the judicialization of politics. An updated debate on the subject is fundamental for reflecting on the separation of powers and its implications in the contemporary legal context. To this end, we will conduct a thorough investigation into legal-constitutional phenomena concerning their genesis in American courts, the formation of the 1988 Constitution in Brazil, and the dialogue with Montesquieu's theory of the three powers, a principle of democracy. This study aims to develop the concepts related to Judicial Activism and the Judicialization of Politics, their interfaces and differences, analytically pointed out in real cases within the judicial system, which thus reverberate in politics, leading to distinct views from societies, theorists, jurists, and academics who are divided between different modes of constitutional analysis. The substantialist theory, inclined towards judicial phenomena, and the proceduralist theory, known for its intense valuation of laws in defense of the Rule of Law, in short, we will also make a prospect, with the intention of narrating the voices of the numerous forces that are favorable and antagonistic to Judicial Activism and the Judicialization of Politics, and thus position ourselves regarding these impacts on democracy and politics.