Friedrich Merz causes confusion in the judge question

Friedrich Merz keeps all options open, which does not necessarily make the current mixture easier. The Chancellor cannot defuse the conflict in his black and red coalition about the election of new constitutional judges on Friday. If in doubt, he even fueled him.

“We don’t know who the candidates will be for a repetition choice,” said Merz in Berlin in the morning. When asked whether he had decided as a member of the Bundestag for or against the controversial candidate Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, Merz gave way. He will make this decision “if I know who will be on the ballot next time”. In addition, the proposals to be made “should also go through the judge’s election committee” of the Bundestag, Merz later added.

I’m sorry, what? Does the Chancellor want to put on the black-red personnel package again-and back on? At least that’s how Merz can be understood on Friday, the trouble at the coalition partner is correspondingly great.

The SPD holds the legal professor Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, who had triggered strong defense reflexes in the Union because of her socio-political positions, as an applicant for a judge. The coordination was exposed to the CDU and CSU’s instigation, since it was unclear whether it would receive the necessary majority. Ultimately, the election of all three lawyers was canceled.

The social democrats are great, especially since the judge’s election committee had previously stood behind Brosius-Gersdorf in the judge’s election committee of the Bundestag. The SPD therefore does not see the need to have the candidates re -confirmed by the committee.

“The three candidates are legally confirmed, the election of the three by the Bundestag is only postponed and not canceled,” says the SPD parliamentary group. The agenda item, i.e. the elections of the judge candidates, was not called. Says: The Social Democrats insist on the agreed Tableau, including Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf.

The Greens also see it that way. The judge’s election committee made a decision with a two-thirds majority, said co-faction leader Katharina Dröge the star. “We would like to decide on this proposal in the German Bundestag. Mr. Merz obviously has a leadership problem in his own faction. He will have to solve that himself.”

The location is procedure, the fronts are hardened. The SPD does not want to withdraw the candidate proposed and controversial by it – but they do not want to choose several dozen Union MPs. The CSU meanwhile claims that Brosius-Gersdorf should think about a withdrawal of their candidacy.

For the Left Party it is clear who is responsible: the Chancellor. “Merz does not control his faction and is now trying to distract from his own failure and chaos, for which the Union was responsible last Friday,” said Member of the Bundestag Clara Bünger star. “The fact that he now even brings the possibility of new candidates shows how much he lets the situation escalate instead of making the constitutional court capable of action.”

As long as there is no successor for the new judge posts in Karlsruhe, the previous judges remain in office. The court remains able to work. Chancellor Merz therefore sees “no time pressure”, as he repeatedly emphasized on Friday. Three judges’ positions would have to be filled, said the Chancellor, “and we talk about how we do that in the coalition”.

Judge election is also difficult because a two -thirds majority is necessary. In the current Bundestag, this usually means that the Union and SPD need the voices of the Greens and also the left. However, the Union does not want to work with both the left and the AfD. However, the choice of constitutional judges in the Bundestag is subject to a peculiarity and would enable black and red-roughly shortened-to reduce the necessary quorum from the vote by targeted absence. However, this trick carries risks and is already considered a suboptimal solution ().

Merz cautiously commented on a change in the election mode. This could be a consideration, he said, but added: “There are still good reasons not to make the elections to the Federal Constitutional Court dependent on simple majorities.” He is pursuing this discussion with interest, but has not yet had a conclusion. This is also not a contribution to clarifying the circumstances.