A testimonial judgment

Abstract

It’s natural function of jurisprudence set the significant terms of the law. Therefore jurisprudence is for law, what talk is to speech. Jurisdiction is a common mechanism for handling, authority on the use of the word, compulsive use of representations of the world, meanings in permanent movements.

The legislative peculiarity of insert confused expressions, expands the scope of discretion, in the interpretive event. In such contingencies jurisprudence as a discursive kind, should not only set the scope of the signifier, but must also create it, -no natural or improper function- because the system generates empty concepts, that is, without meaning in natural language. In in this cases judge assumes without legal (constitutional) delegation, legislative power, democratically prohibited.

Include among the “public interest” case “in which it is observed a reiteration of aggressive behavior and a marked risk of occurrence is perceived a marked risk of new facts, of increasing severity”, is to extend the meaning of expression beyond the limit to where communication is possible.