The mythical Eden of fallacies: An approach to the argumentative bias of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela

Abstract

This article aims to analyse the argumentation from a legal point of view, specifically from a constitutional perspective, highlighting the fallacious component and the political bias that taints any decision that claims to be impartial and fair. An exercise that highlights the cognitive activity of the judge of the Constitutional Chamber in his logical evaluation, that aims at establishing a connection between premises and a conclusion contained in the judgement. In this enquiry, the expression “Eden of fallacies” is used to present the contrast between the logical standard, which should be demanded of a conglomerate of individuals who call themselves magisters, with the arguments and technique proper to an environment marked by controversy. This “Eden” rich in mistakes, deconstruction of syllogisms and disuse of logical symbols, is that of a Constitutional Chamber, a judicial body existing in Venezuela, which acts as a judicial tyranny, biased and willingly submitted to the vagaries of an authoritarian policy.