This paper analyzes judicial review (concentrated and abstract) exercised by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the methods for and theories that allow an empirical approach to this phenomenon as a decision-making process, making use of political institutions (distribution of powers and competences) and legal interpretation (legal literature and concepts). The institutional context of the decision-making process assigned by the Brazilian Constitution to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) makes it act by means of concentrated judicial review, ascribing to it the power to judge the constitutionality of federal and state law or normative acts, judicially reviewing these norms. The objective of this study is to determine the role of judicial review and the extent of concentrated judicial review, using as empirical basis the decisions of the Supreme Court in 5011 Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs), adjudicated between 1988 and 2013. In the empirical test, there are the following main and mutually exclusive hypotheses: H1- Judicial review adds an institutional collective veto player in decision-making (institutional analysis), increasing policy stability while reducing size the winning set of the status quo or expanding the core of unanimity; H2- Judicial review does not add an institutional/collective veto player, because, institutionally, the constitutional design and the process of appointment of the members of STF indicates the validity of the absorption rule of the Court in concentrated judicial review by other veto players. Secondly, there are the following hypotheses: H3 – The number of legitimized plaintiffs for the petition of judicial review cases (ADI) increases policy stability and reduces importance of agenda setting and decision-making capacity of majority coalitions in decision making; H4 – The number of legitimate plaintiffs for the petition of judicializing measures increases the state/federative policy stability and is innocuous to federal policy stability and decision-making. Conclusions: The data demonstrates that H1 is supported in federative/state decision-making and little evident national level, partially refuting H2. However, given the number of legitimized plaintiffs, the massive introduction of judicializing measures at the national level indicates that judicial review is used by minorities as signaling for political positioning and maximizing future electoral opportunities without effectively restricting government (H3). Judicial review is directed preferentially to increase federative/state policy stability, reducing the role of opposition majorities or restricting decisions to extend the federal decentralization by state decision making (H4).

The importance of the stare decisis doctrine for judicial control of the constitutionality of US law – between the stability of jurisprudence and instrumentalism

All American courts have a right to examine the conformity of legal acts with the Constitution as the basis for issuing a decision, creating a diffused system of judicial review. Court precedents and the stare decisis doctrine become the stabilizing factor of jurisprudence. However, it is not easy to make an unequivocal assessment of the role of the stare decisis doctrine for judicial review due to a number of factors that affect its significance. They include the formal lack of absolute nature of the court decisions, or the fact that the Federal US Supreme Court is not bound by its own rulings. The latter fact seems particularly important in the assessment of the subject matter in the context of considerable judicial activism and the way the judges are nominated and approved for, in principle, lifetime positions. In this publication, all the above-mentioned factors have been analyzed in order to assess the significance of the stare decisis doctrine for judicial review in the US as accurately as possible.

In American legal historiography, the debate concerning the exact contours and reforms of the Progressive Era is still ongoing. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Although progressive attitudes toward the economy, taxation, foreign policy, labor law, social standards, human rights, women’s suffrage, rapid urbanization and unrestricted immigration highlighted the necessity of reforms, such progress was seen from a variety of perspectives. We may ask the question if American legal thought that time was really progressive. The jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court profoundly influenced the shape of the legal order in economic and labor law. Unfortunately, some decisions were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected the ideological attitudes of the justices rather than an aspiration for reform.

Sovereignty of Parliament and Stability of Great Britain’s Political System in the Perspective of Consequences of the Brexit

Regime changes that occurred in Great Britain as the effect of Brexit have led to explicit reactivation of the sovereignty of parliament principle. Main warrant of political stability is identified with the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Main hypothesis of this article is that stabilizing activities that are undertaken by this institution influence three possible layers: stabilizing the community, political system and authorities. This overgrowth of competences can affect constitutional fundamentals of the regime. Probable effect of this ongoing process of changes will be endeavours to codify a constitution. Method that is employed in this paper is a method of system analysis, which seems to be the most adequate approach for researches of political stability. Considerations presented in the paper are included within the remit of political theory, political comparativism and constitutional systems.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Progressive attitudes highlighted the necessity of reforms. The Chinese issue, often risen in the public dialogue, was the subject of deliberation of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the federal executive branch of government. Chae Chan Ping v. United States and subsequent cases established the doctrine of consular noneviewability referring to immigration law and delineating the scope of judicial review for decisions concerning the admission of immigrants to the United States. They also strengthened the plenary power doctrine. We may ask if the Supreme Court judgments were in conformity with the ideas of American Progressivism. Unfortunately, the Chinese Exclusion Cases were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected anti-Chinese sentiment rather than an aspiration for reforms.