O "não" como pseudofundamentação nas decisões-padrão

Abstract

This study addresses non-individualized judicial decisions, known as standard decisions, which are based on predefined models, thereby predominantly employing a purely semiotic approach in certain procedural phases. Through a discursive analysis, the essence of these practices and their impact on the legitimacy of the judicial system are questioned. Instead of providing wellfounded solutions, these models often result in simulated decisions that compromise the effectiveness and credibility of the Judiciary. The study extensively investigates the proliferation of these practices, often driven by case overload and judicial calendar congestion, shedding light on issues of transparency and rationality in legal communication. It examines the judiciary's capacity to ensure equitable and personalized treatment for litigants. By neglecting substantive motivation and adequate legal foundation, standard decisions perpetuate biases and injustices, thereby challenging the principle of equality before the law. This challenge underscores the importance of transparency, rationality, and individualization in judicial decisions as essential pillars of judicial legitimacy.