REGARDING THE LEGITIMACY OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY IN EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW (DEFENSE AND CRITICISMS)

This essay addresses the issue of the legitimacy of judicial supremacy in the exercise of constitutionality control, presenting a defense and also some criticisms. Its scientific relevance lies in the fact that it brings to the field of investigative debate an issue that remains pending and that does not clarify the real function of the Supreme Court with regard to the constitutional principle within a democratic regime. Its social relevance is of the highest and absolute interest, because it makes it possible to clarify to the general public the role and scope of action of the Supreme Court justices in relation to the protection of the law and the Constitution. This is a bibliographical essay, based on analytical thinking originating from political science and social psychology. The discussion about this judicial legitimacy in the control of constitutionality is, per se, a sociological aberration, because no power is granted the exercise of control by the Magna Carta, an expression that can be interpreted as manipulation of the law according to private intentions to the detriment of the public interest. The conclusions reached are that the constitution of a country and its entire retina of laws and legal and moral norms are within the scope of the letter of the law, and should be transparent, objective, direct, and do away with intermediaries who seek to give it the meaning that best suits them. The mere fact that someone files a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking an interpretation of the constitutional legal text should already be considered a crime against the Constitution, and the judges should already deny the request without any right to assess the merits of the representation itself.