The Semantic Descontruction of Judicial Supremacy and the Required Affirmation of Judicial Review: an analysis from the deliberative democracy of Habermas and Nino

Abstract

The judicial supremacy can be characterized as the doctrine that underlies the possibility of the supreme court to say, according with its vision of the constitutional text, what the law is conclusively. This paper assumes that the theory of deliberative democracy, by to postulating a decentralized model of society, constructed intersubjectively through an open discussion among the various political and social actors, can also be used as a critical theory to judicial supremacy. Thus, using the Gargarella studies this article will look, based on his vision of deliberative democracy to demonstrate that judicial supremacy is harmful to democracy, because the it removes citizens from the final decision of most important social issues, and transfers them to a supreme political power.