The impartiality self-assessed: the allegations of impediment and suspicion in Brazilian Supreme Court

Abstract

One of the blind spots of the traditional rationale in the Brazilian Supreme Court judicial authority is the description of the function and discursive use of their own impartiality. Based upon data and discourses related to how the Court ruled regarding its judges performance, this article aims to observe the singular paradoxical relationship between law and politics reflected in the STF decisions. Therefore, this study adopted a methodological approach with its own focus of quantitative research. In order to do so, we scrutinized all decisions on procedures questioning a supposed partiality of ministers. We highlighted the deliberative criteria, the power agenda of the Presidency of the Court and, in particular, a confidence-building capacity for the impartial performance of jurisdiction. Last but not least, a clear diagnosis presented on the visibility deficit related to the judicial impartiality at the Court and the impact born from legitimated responses during constitutional adjudication.