Disagreements of political morality between executive and judiciary: an analysis of extraordinary resource nº 657.718 / MG

Abstract

This paper analyzes, starting from RE 657.718 / MG, the existence of moral disagreements between the Executive and the Judiciary, and how these Powers have been positioned to solve these issues. It seeks to understand what the disagreements of morality consist between these Powers, elucidating that the Judiciary has not been the most adequate space for the solution of these controversies, given the existence of an institutional culture in deliberating in a pragmatic and non-integrative way, applying the theory of judicial decision developed by Ronald Dworkin in a partial way. Thus, it was concluded that to improve the solution of moral disagreements between the Executive and the Judiciary, the use of interinstitutional dialogues should be resorted to. Dialogue makes it possible to build decisions that are more integrated into the legal system, as well as allowing for a better understanding of the contours of moral divergence. In the case of RE 657,718 / MG, it was identified that the Ministers presented an erroneous understanding of the disagreement. For the development of this work, we used the inductive, qualitative methodology, with bibliographic and documentary analysis, through the collection of secondary data, which happened with the recording of the plenary judgment session of RE nº 657.718 / MG.