| Popis: |
This chapter contributes to the ongoing discussion regarding the legitimacy of constitutional jurisprudence. It shows the multitude of techniques relied on by constitutional courts in Europe to navigate the law–politics–society divide, in particular the adoption of rulings that are less invasive than the annulment of legislation. Methods such as saving constructions, findings of temporary constitutionality, and declarations without or with delayed annulment, allow the courts to exercise their authority cautiously. The chapter analyses how the legitimacy of constitutional courts, and a potential backlash, is also related to the possibilities to access the court. If the procedural framework makes it easy to refer all manner of constitutional questions to the court, it becomes more important still for the latter to think carefully about the adjudication of such questions on their merits, in part to ensure that the political branches are not overly stymied in the realization of their mandate and objectives. |
