English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The basis of constitutional states lies in the separation of powers. With the evolution of modern states, from the theories of neo-constitutionalism, the separation became more fluid, with the objective of giving greater effectiveness to the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution. From that moment, the Judiciary leaves the initial inertia and gains strength in more effective decisions. Judicial advocacy, called judicial activism, can be an important mechanism for citizens to protect their rights against legislative inertia and executive bureaucracy. However, judges when they exceed in the decision-making power, can disrespect the tripartition of powers. This movement of judicial extremism is detrimental to the Democratic State of Law. It is easy to see these extreme positions in relation to public policies related to the right to health. The State, an extremist judge, disrespects public policies, disrespects the public budget, disrespects the rights of the community and imposes obligations on the Administration,

DO ATIVISMO PARA O EXTREMISMO JUDICIAL NAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS DE ASSISTÊNCIA FARMACÊUTICA