The Judiciary Act, adopted in 1925 in the United States of America, transformed the Writ of Certiorari into the main form of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it enabled the examination of admissibility, as opposed to the mandatory appeal, to be performed discretionarily (i.e. examination is not deemed a right of the Party). Therefore, members of the U.S. Supreme Court now select which particular constitutional issues deserve their consideration. This solution, adopted as a way to minimize the workload of the Justices responsible for making uniform federal laws applicable throughout the U.S., brought significant consequences to the role played by those Justices in the American legal and political system. An analysis of the Writ of Certiorari is the object of the first part of this monograph. Its relevance is straightforwardly justified by the approval, in late 2004, of the Brazilian Constitutional Amendment no. 45, which grants our Federal Supreme Court a similar power, i.e. the chance to dismiss extraordinary legal remedies on account of the constitutional issues therein discussed lacking General Repercussion. Finally, an analysis of the writ of certiorari scope and of the relevant changes introduced in the U.S. Supreme Court´s routine attempts to put forward concrete elements toward an incipient anticipation of the impacts which General Repercussion should eventually produce on the Brazilian Supreme Court as well as on extraordinary legal remedies themselves. (Our regular legislators have not yet reviewed General Repercussion in detail, though.)