Luís Roberto Barroso is one of the most influential legal scholars in Latin America. In this Article, we challenge his theory of constitutional legitimacy. Barroso believes that the legitimacy of constitutional adjudication stems from three different roles performed by constitutional courts. First, courts play a counter-majoritarian role; second, they have also a “representative role.” Although judges lack votes, they are better positioned than legislatures to interpret the will of the people because they are less vulnerable to partisan interests. Finally, courts can perform an “enlightened role”; they can break the political inertia and lead society to a better future. Although these powers should be used sparingly, courts can act as an enlightened vanguard and push history forward in the interests of the citizens. We argue that these roles are conceptually inconsistent and that the last two roles are not justified. We conclude, in addition, that Barroso’s theory of judicial legitimacy encourages a politicization of adjudication and constitutes a threat to the rule of law.

中文翻译：

---

路易斯·罗伯托·巴罗佐的宪法审判理论：哲学上的回答

Luís Roberto Barroso 是拉丁美洲最有影响力的法律学者之一。在本文中，我们挑战他的宪法合法性理论。巴罗佐认为，宪法审判的合法性源于宪法法院所扮演的三种不同角色。首先，法院发挥反多数作用；其次，他们还有“代表作用”。尽管法官缺乏选票，但他们比立法机构更能解释人民的意愿，因为他们不太容易受到党派利益的影响。最后，法院可以发挥“开明的作用”；他们可以打破政治惯性，引领社会走向更美好的未来。尽管应该谨慎使用这些权力，但法院可以充当开明的先锋，为公民的利益推动历史向前发展。我们认为这些角色在概念上是不一致的，并且最后两个角色是不合理的。此外，我们得出结论，巴罗佐的司法合法性理论鼓励了审判的政治化，并对法治构成威胁。