A racionalidade das decisões judiciais e o teor político do discurso jurídico sobre o Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem-Terra: análise das decisões do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre a Questão Agrária no Brasil no período democrático (da década de 1980 até 2011).

Abstract

The judicialization of politics has been an actual fact, but both its theoretical justification and its social objectives still are unable to provide a consensus, which leaves some serious setbacks.There is a general feeling of imbalance between security and justice. On the one hand, there is the existing models of legal rationality, which strive to create a certain neutralization of the judiciary. On the other hand, there are the normative assumptions (inheritance of natural law and positivism), which have failed to fulfill the promise of social emancipation departing from the right of the legal world.The search for new rationales to legitimize the normative validity is so that, if posed, the ideals of justice and security can defend the judicial practices with a greater role of inclusion into matters of great social scale. This can often trample or anticipate the actions of its own political powers (legislative and executive), which are still not resolved properly, either in theoretical terms or in terms of evaluating their practical effects. Therefore, in this issue of legalization of politics, this study aims to evaluate the profile of the judicial nature of politics in Brazil, focusing specifically on the justices of the Supreme Court and Superior Court of Justice on the social issue of land reform in the democratic period after the promulgation of the Constitution of 1988 by 2010.An inductive study of these decisions included two elements: a) emancipatory(ie; according to most models of the democratic participation (public) sphere of the judiciary). The restoration of the link between the judicial decision and the world of the life of society as well as the assertion of the judiciary as an instrument in the hands of society, to guarantee (and even create) rights achieved by social struggles; b) violator of political-democratic safeguards, looking at the risk that the empowerment of the judiciary (power in Brazil not subject to democratic control) can not only destabilize politically active powers, but can also become invaded by ideological disputes of dominant groups. This is in addition to the risk of suffering an easier cooptation of this judicial power by hegemonic elites.