Amid ongoing vacancies at Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, former Federal Constitutional Court Judge and Berlin constitutional law expert Susanne Baer has emphasized the need for candidates who possess “courage, expertise and willpower” to effectively fulfill such a significant role.
Baer, in comments to “Der Spiegel” cautioned against the dangers of appointing weak judges, stating they risked becoming ideologically driven. She noted that political affiliations tend to fade in Karlsruhe, observing, “One may still outwardly be a Green or CDU candidate, but inwardly no longer”. She strongly refuted the notion that prior stances on issues should disqualify potential candidates, warning that appointing individuals who are entirely devoid of prior convictions would be disadvantageous. “Otherwise, we would have blank slates on the constitutional court. That would not be a good idea.
While acknowledging the right of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) to propose candidates, Baer expressed skepticism regarding their suitability, suggesting the party’s constitutional grounding was “unrealistic” citing concerns raised in Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) reports.
Baer did, however, advocate for the inclusion of former politicians on the court, highlighting the value of their experience in federal politics and their ability to realistically assess the political system. She cautioned, however, that such representation should be proportionate.
Regarding diversity within the court, Baer suggested there was “still room for improvement” while also stressing that a constitutional court should be an independent institution, not a direct reflection of societal demographics.
Finally, Baer cautioned against altering the allocation of seats based solely on parliamentary representation, specifically addressing the SPD’s continued ability to nominate candidates despite a reduced share of seats in the Bundestag. She warned against hastily changing the formula to favor any particular political force, arguing that such a system would risk creating a court more concerned with mathematical calculations than balanced oversight. “We don’t want a court that mirrors mathematical majorities, but rather a control body that is as diverse and balanced as possible”.