ATIVISMO JUDICIAL (OU JURÍDICO), AUTOCONTENÇÃO E ÚLTIMA PALAVRA NA INTERPRETAÇÃO DA CONSTITUIÇÃO: O que o Supremo Tribunal Federal pode aprender com o ativismo judicial norte-americano e as teorias do diálogo

Abstract

This dissertation, based on the investigation of the "emergence" of judicial activism expression s arrising, on pendulous phases between judicial activism and self-restraint of American Supreme Court s jurisprudence, on dialogue s theories and on the contribution of many authors who advocate the adoption of a Constitution s constructive and moral interpretation, aims to demonstrate two theses about the judicial activism s limits and who should have the last word at Constitution s interpretation. The first one, refered to the idea of, in not being in a case of fundamental rights guarantee, protection of minorities and the unblocking of access channels to political power, the Supreme Court should adopt a selfrestraint posture, preferring decisions that encourage the Legislature to exercise its prerrogatives provided by the Constitution. Cases in which the democratic process will be strengthened, through a greater accountability of elected representatives before the true holder of sovereignty: the people. The second one, that there is no definitive last word (but only temporary) at Constitution s interpretation and that the legislative activism, when exercised to confirm or even to contest a Supreme Court s decision, far from meaning a crisis between the powers, may serve to strengthen the democratic process, increasing the possibility of providing more correct answers to especific constitutional problem.