Supremacia Judicial: trajetória, pressupostos, críticas e a alternativa dos diálogos constitucionais

Abstract

The supremacy clause requires that the Supreme Court shall have the last word on constitutional matters? The brazilian and north-american Supreme Courts confirms, endorsed by the traditional wisdom. The thesis aims proving that such statement is mistaken. The history of the global expansion of the judicial power, in refer to the constitutional intepretation, will be reconstructed, in order to clarify its real presuppositions. The brazilian constitutional evolution will be analyzed to prove that before 1988 there was no judicial supremacy in Brazil. After the analysis of the institutional and the democratic criticisms, the potencial of the constitutional dialogues doctrine will be explored to explain the interactions between the legislative and the judicial branches in constitutional interpretation, and its ability to provide a normative basis to reconcile the judicialization of politics with democracy in Brazil.