Political influence on the Supreme Court's exercise of constitutional review

Abstract

The very nature of the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of laws and regulations places it in direct contact with the legislative and executive branches. Given the legal and practical powers these two branches possess, which can influence the Constitutional Court's ability to exercise its jurisdiction with complete independence, it is sometimes compelled to compromise by employing the concept of self-imposed limitations. Political influence on the Constitutional Court can reach such a point that it not only restricts the exercise of its constitutional review powers but can even completely prohibit them. Furthermore, the constitutional judiciary itself is influenced by political considerations, which are reflected in its rulings. These rulings can reveal specific political stances adopted by the constitutional judge, often negatively impacting the professionalism, impartiality, and objectivity of the constitutional judiciary. This results in some rulings contradicting judicial precedents, others whose content is difficult to justify on legal grounds, and still others lacking an assessment of consequences and the necessity of finding solutions and compromises for situations for which the constitutional legislator has not provided a solution. In other words, political influence prevents the constitutional judiciary from creating and innovating.