The research evaluated the effectiveness of the allegations of impediment and suspicion at the Supreme Court as mechanisms to ensure impartiality. The goal was to deepen the diagnosis that no allegation of impediment or suspicion was brought to trial by the Plenary. From an empirical, quantitative, and qualitative analysis of the rite and content of the decisions on the complaints, it was possible to conclude that the Supreme Court has a consistent and plausible jurisprudence for denying follow-up to the allegations of impediment and suspicion. However, the rite lacks transparency and is conducted with deference nuances. Therefore, the results of controlling the impartiality of ministers can even be attained, but without the reputational gain corresponding to their performance.
Produtos de Pesquisa
- Artigos acadêmicos
Fora dos Holofotes: estudo empírico sobre o controle da imparcialidade dos ministros do STF
Autor(es): Rubens Glezer , Lívia Gil Guimarães , Luíza Pavan Ferraro , Ana Laura Pereira Barbosa
