Judges in the Formation of the Nation-State: Professional Experiences, Academic Background and Geographic Circulation of Members of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and the United States

Ros, Luciano Da

doi:10.1590/1981-3868201000010004

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Political Science Review

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Bras. Political Sci. Rev. 4 (1) • 2010 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3868201000010004 copy

Judges in the Formation of the Nation-State: Professional Experiences, Academic Background and Geographic Circulation of Members of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and the United States^* * Research funded by a CAPES /Fulbright grant. A preliminary version was presented to the Working Group on Political Elites and Institutions at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the National Postgraduate and Research Association in the Social Sciences (ANPOCS), in 2008. I thank Renato Perissinotto and Ernesto Seidl for their comments, as well as André Marenco dos Santos for his support. In addition, I thank the editors of the Brazilian Political Science Review and the two anonymous peer reviewers for their careful reading and valuable suggestions that have surely improved this work.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

This article compares the career profiles of judges from the highest bodies of the Judiciary in Brazil and the United States of America, examining the biographies of all the ministros of the Supreme Court of Justice (Empire) and of the Supreme Federal Tribunal (Republic) in Brazil, and of all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed until 2008 in both cases. Based on the sociology of political elites perspective, the article examines data concerning academic background, geographic circulation and the different professional experiences — legal, political and linked to the administration of the State's coercive activity (police or military) — lived through by future members of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and the United States so as to identify the types of individuals recommended to join the top bodies of the Judiciary in the two countries. In this sense, different State-building processes are identified on the basis of the examination of Brazilian and US judicial elites, suggesting a more fragmented and diverse trajectory in the case of US justices, and greater homogeneity and centralization in the case of their Brazilian counterparts.

Keywords:
Judicial careers; State-building; Political recruitment; Brazilian Supreme Court; United States Supreme Court

	Brazil	United States
Number of members	1829-1891 – 17 ministros	1789-1807 – 6 justices
	1891-1931 – 15 ministros	1807-1837 – 7 justices
	1931-1965 – 11 ministros	1837-1863 – 9 justices
	1965-1969 – 16 ministros	1863-1866 – 10 justices
	1969-present – 11 ministros	1866-1869 – 7 justices
	Average – 13.44 ministros	1869-present – 9 justices
		Average – 8.87 justices
Rules for appointment	Three different rules:	A single rule (1789-present):
	Rule of the STJi (1829-91): Appointment by the emperor from among juízes letrados extracted from the Relações by the criterion of seniority and granting of the title by Council of State;	Appointment by the president with confirmation by the Senate.
	Rule of the STF (1891-1930; 1934-7; 1946- present): Appointment by the president with confirmation by the Senate;
	Rule of the STF (1930-1934; 1937-1945): Appointment by the president without confirmation by the Senate.

	Brazil	United States
Total time (years)	179	219
Cases under analysis (total number of appointments)	274	111
Individuals under analysis	273	110
Average number of appointments per year	1.53	0.51
Proportional turnover per year	0.113	0.057

Brazil	United States
Dom Pedro II – 98 (35.3%)	George Washington – 10 (9%)
Getúlio Vargas – 21 (7.7%)	Franklin D. Roosevelt – 8 (7.2%)
Dom Pedro I – 17 (6.2%)	Andrew Jackson – 6 (5.4%)
Deodoro da Fonseca – 16 (5.8%)	Abraham Lincoln – 5 (4.5%)
Floriano Peixoto – 14 (5.1%)	William H. Taft – 5 (4.5%)
João Figueiredo – 9 (3.3%)	Dwight D. Eisenhower – 5 (4.5%)
Castello Branco – 8 (2.9%)

Brazil	United States
Rio de Janeiro – 52 (19.1%)	New York – 13 (11.7%)
Bahia – 51 (18.8%)	Virginia – 10 (9%)
Minas Gerais – 39 (14.4%)	Massachusetts – 9 (8.1%)
São Paulo – 27 (10%)	Kentucky – 8 (7.2%)
Pernambuco – 19 (7%)	Maryland – 6 (5.4%)
Rio Grande do Sul – 18 (6.6%)	Pennsylvania – 6 (5.4%)

Brazil	United States
São Paulo – 73 (26.6%)	Massachusetts – 21 (17.2%)
Portugal – 69 (25.1%)	New York – 18 (14.7%)
Pernambuco – 66 (24%)	Connecticut – 12 (9.8%)
Rio de Janeiro – 32 (11.6%)	Virginia – 8 (6.5%)
Minas Gerais – 14 (5.1%)	Ohio – 8 (6.5%)

Brazil	United States
Rio de Janeiro (and old Distrito Federal) – 132	District of Columbia – 38 (34.2%)
(48.2%)	Massachusetts – 9 (8.1%)
Distrito Federal (current) – 35 (12.8%)	New York – 8 (7.2%)
Bahia – 31 (11.3%)	Ohio – 8 (7.2%)
São Paulo – 26 (9.5%)	Pennsylvania – 7 (6.3%)

Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política Avenida Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 315, sala 2047, CEP 05508-900, Tel.: (55 11) 3091-3754 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bpsr@brazilianpoliticalsciencareview.org

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *
Research funded by a CAPES /Fulbright grant. A preliminary version was presented to the Working Group on Political Elites and Institutions at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the National Postgraduate and Research Association in the Social Sciences (ANPOCS), in 2008. I thank Renato Perissinotto and Ernesto Seidl for their comments, as well as André Marenco dos Santos for his support. In addition, I thank the editors of the Brazilian Political Science Review and the two anonymous peer reviewers for their careful reading and valuable suggestions that have surely improved this work.