Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2010 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Silva, Alice Reis Pereira e
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Neves, Marcelo da Costa Pinto |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/9100
|
Resumo: |
This paper aims to show the new Supreme Court which, after more than 200 years of breeding and an image of shrewdness, there is modernized to go through a process of opening and democratization. Since the promulgation of the Constitution of 1988 and the consolidation of the democracy regime, it was clear the paper of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution. Thanks to the Constituents, which, although haven t promoted significant changes in the structure and composition of the Supreme Court, established a broad array of goals and objectives to be achieved by the State to ensure that all brazilians have the minimum conditions to live a dignified life. As the person responsible for custody and enforcement of the will of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has had an operation more complex in order to ensure the realization of fundamental rights and guarantees and ensure the preservation of values safeguarded by the Constitution, often from the creative interpretation of rules of open content or conflicting. In order to legitimize their decisions, especially those involving issues of significant public interest, the Supreme Court, oxygenated by the presence of new components, has promoted a revolution in the art of communicating with the population, intent to achieve what Peter Häberle called open society of interpreters of the Constitution, seeking to ensure that the decision handed down by its members wasn t seen as unison, but as a result of a pluralistic process of constitutional interpretation, once it had the participation of members of society. One of the ways chosen by the Supreme Court to justify those decisions was to hold public audience on the actions which were being discussed issues arising at general and of significant public interest, to hear testimony from people listed by the society, experts in the subject under discussion |
