Abstract
This paper aimed to discuss whether it would be or not some coherence between what Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) Judges taught in their doctrines and what they decide in hard cases as constitutional Judges, considering yet some neoconstitutional paradigm issues. It was initially believed that the coherence grade between the taught and the decided would oscillate accordingly with the extrajudicial interests in each case. Thus, this research was divided into three parts to test the drawn hypothesis. In the first was debated the main elements which compose neoconstitutionalism. In the second, it was analyzed Judges Mendes, Moraes, and Barroso’s doctrines. In the third, it was studied theirs votes in two lawsuits - at Declaratory Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission nº 26 (about the analogical application of racism law to homotransphobia), and Declaratory Action of Unconstitutionality nº 5.526 (on the applicability of criminal preventive measures to parliamentarians. In the end, the raised hypothesis was disproved, since the Judges’ attachment degree to neoconstitutional ideas and methods showed in their books was also verified in both lawsuits. As a final lesson, this paper indicates the necessity of researching empirically Constitutional Courts as a way of supervising and controlling them democratically.
Keywords:
constitutional jurisdiction; neoconstitucionalism; scholarship; STF; hard cases