Brosius-Gersdorf: "Doesn't want to be responsible for government crisis"

The SPD's candidate for the Federal Constitutional Court, Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, spoke for the first time on Markus Lanz's talk show about a possible withdrawal. Lanz asked her whether the controversy surrounding her candidacy would damage the Federal Constitutional Court. Her response was: "As soon as there's even a threat of that, I would not stick with my nomination. That's damage I don't want to be responsible for. I also don't want to be responsible for a government crisis in this country."

But she also received many letters and requests not to withdraw, the professor said. Otherwise, "this campaign would prevail, and we don't know what will happen in the next constitutional judge election."

The 54-year-old spoke about death threats via email and suspicious packages. She advised her employees not to work on-site at the institute in Potsdam.

Elections to the Federal Constitutional Court have so far been conducted rather quietly in Germany. The protocol doesn't even provide for a public debate on candidates in the Bundestag. Let alone that a candidate could be attacked in the media for weeks on end for real or perceived positions, receive death threats, and be described as a "scandal" by an archbishop in a Sunday sermon.

With the scandal surrounding the candidacy of Potsdam law professor Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, those days are over. But even after the failed election last Friday, the SPD parliamentary group was keen to discourage its candidate from making any public statements – some considered it too risky and too contrary to established practice.

Brosius-Gersdorf, however, decided for herself – and went on the media offensive on Tuesday. In the morning, she had a statement sent out through a major law firm, and in the evening, she appeared on Markus Lanz's talk show.

Wearing a navy blazer and white blouse, she sat opposite the moderator, looked mostly very serious and made no secret of why she had come: "I would like to contribute to making the debate more objective" - or to put it another way: she chose the offensive defense.

"I can't tolerate this any longer. I find it outrageous," she said in response to criticism from Bamberg Archbishop Herwig Gössl. He had called her nomination a "domestic political scandal" and, in his sermon, criticized her liberal stance on abortion: "I don't want to imagine the abyss of intolerance and contempt for humanity we will slide into if responsibility before God increasingly disappears from people's consciousness."

As in her emailed statement, Brosius-Gersdorf claimed that she was neither an "activist" nor "ultra-left." "I stand absolutely in the center of society," she said. On the issue of abortion, she represented the opinion of the vast majority of the population, who wanted abortion legalized in the first three months. She quoted from memory the correct page (102) of the coalition agreement between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which states on abortion: "We are expanding the coverage of costs by statutory health insurance beyond the current regulations." In her view, this could mean nothing other than legalization. "There's not a single sheet of paper between me and the coalition agreement."

At times, the show devolved into a law lecture for career changers, but that was to be expected after the debate of the past few weeks. Brosius-Gersdorf eloquently presented her remarks on the human dignity dilemma between the unborn child and the pregnant woman. Granting both the same basic rights during all stages of pregnancy would mean that abortion is not even possible when medically indicated. Therefore, she distinguished between early and late stages of pregnancy.

A year ago, Brosius-Gersdorf appeared on Lanz and discussed a possible AfD ban. The video circulated on all social networks in recent days because the lawyer used a highly misleading formulation. Banning the AfD would not "eliminate its supporters," she said at the time. AfD leader Alice Weidel exclaimed in the Bundestag last week in a dramatic voice: "They want to eliminate us. They want to eliminate me."

Brosius-Gersdorf apologized for this misleading choice of words, but did not back down from her previous position on the matter. "If, after a very careful examination, the result is that there are good indications that the requirements are met, then as a legal scholar, I see no reason not to submit such an application."

Lanz used the opportunity to question Brosius-Gersdorf about all of her sometimes controversial positions, such as mandatory COVID vaccination and headscarves in the public service. Here, she made a statement that offered profound insight – and explained at least part of the heated debate of the past few weeks. She said it was important to her to provide legal expertise on controversial issues that affect the population as a whole. "My job as a legal scholar cannot be to ask myself what impact I am having, what people think of me – I want to contribute to the debate, I want to apply my legal skills."

Meanwhile, the number of her opponents within the CDU/CSU is growing. While Brosius-Gersdorf was on Lanz, Sandra Maischberger invited Federal Research Minister Dorothee Bär (CSU). She expressed understanding for the reservations of CDU/CSU MPs about the candidate and suggested she reconsider her candidacy. "We have a lot of responsible MPs, and if they say, 'I can't vote for Ms. Brosius-Gersdorf in good conscience,' then I accept that, I respect it, and then I also expect the candidate to consider for herself whether she's the right person."

Bär defended criticism of the candidate. Women are not being done any favors by not being allowed to engage with their issues, she added. "And I also expect a bit of resilience and a bit of being able to accept criticism from someone who wants to be elected to Germany's highest court," she added.

with dpa