Some lawyers are also currently refusing adequate protection for citizens against an encroaching state - such as parts of the media, opposition, trade unions or churches. In order to avoid overdue and vulnerable legal positions on corona policy, the apparent procrastination of judgments by some courts is apparently a means of choice. Other lawyers, on the other hand, are sharply critical of the corona policy and its shielding by parts of the judiciary.
A defining feeling of many citizens in connection with the disproportionate and non-evidence-based corona measures is that of abandonment. Obviously, there is currently no influential social group that wants to seriously oppose the destructive development of society and put itself in front of the oppressed citizens: large parts of the media, opposition, trade unions or churches have ignored this social responsibility in recent months and have not provided adequate assistance to the oppressed citizens. A concept from the judiciary, which takes effect in the event of accidents, for example, can also be indirectly and analogously transferred to this social behavior: the concept of "failure to provide assistance".
Verdicts-procrastination by the Constitutional Court?
Justice should be the keyword here: Even some lawyers are currently refusing adequate protection for citizens against an encroaching state, which is also driven by irresponsible journalists. A means of choice to avoid long overdue (and vulnerable) legal positions on the scandalous corona policy is the apparent inaction of some courts. Currently, there are debates about decisions not taken by the Federal Constitutional Court. In addition, there is a Hessian scandal judgment on "2G" and a late judgment of the Bavarian Administrative Court against curfews.
Meanwhile, a former constitutional judge is going hard with the corona policy "into court". And the Freiburg constitutional lawyer Dietrich Murswiek complains, on the one hand, of a postponement of judgment by the Federal Constitutional Court (for example on the "federal emergency brake") and, on the other hand, in an expert opinion states that 2G, 3G, a withholding of loss of earnings compensation and generally all disadvantages of unvaccinated persons are unconstitutional.
Does legal inaction create a "lawless" space?
The President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Stephan Harbarth, has rejected the accusation of the procrastination of a fundamental decision on corona policy: It is not only difficult legal questions to answer, but also experts from various fields of expertise to be heard beforehand, according to Harbarth. He announced decisions on the so-called federal emergency brake at the latest in November, numerous urgent applications had been rejected last year. The questions about the meaning of judgments on processes that have already been completed (at least for the time being) when the verdict is announced are pressing: both the upcoming decision on the "federal emergency brake" and the Bavarian judgment on the curfew. But can these decisions at least have an effect in the future and then possibly as a legal warning prevent a repetition of the fatal virus policy in the form experienced?
The alleged procrastination of important legal positions creates an unexplained (temporarily, so to speak, "legal–free") space - presumably this state of legal ambiguity is even convenient for some of the rulers. After all, at least you do not have to expect a "negative" verdict in this phase, which in my opinion obviously unconstitutional character of many corona measures already means a (time) gain for those responsible for corona policy. In the area of the dubious database on Corona, there is an indirect parallel to this alleged procrastination strategy: The persistent alleged "ignorance" regarding the corona database and the resulting state of "ambiguity" is politically comfortable and is presumably not changed at an appropriate pace. The harassment against unvaccinated persons is also legally unclear: in order not to have to pronounce an attackable vaccination obligation, the government shifts the indirect vaccination obligation to private persons and thus leaves the question legally in the approximate.
In addition, the undue proximity of government politicians and the President of the court Harbarth during the corona crisis is increasingly coming into focus. So media report that Chancellor, Minister and constitutional judge met in June for dinner and despite ongoing proceedings, the corona policy was the topic: The supreme judge himself had proposed it. Since the end of September, Karlsruhe has had to deal with a request for bias against Harbarth and his fellow judge Susanne Baer because of this dinner. This should not come as a surprise that the judiciary is not independent has often been criticized by European "authorities". Even if obviously a judge should be independent, it only takes a look at the judgments to realize that there is a strange kind of independence here.
"Even in the judiciary there are lateral thinkers and intellectual relatives"
The lawyers who have joined together in the "Network Critical Judges and Prosecutors (KRISTA)" in response to the corona policy, for example, make an impression more independent of government wishes. There are certainly numerous other lawyers who oppose the corona policy. In view of the poisoned social mood, one must highly appreciate the courage of these lawyers.
KRISTA, for example, has an essay that deals with sensational judgments of family courts on the best interests of children in connection with corona measures - some of these judgments were aggressively rejected by parts of the media, politics and justice. But the fact that, for example, the verdict that the anti-mask judgment of a family judge from Weimar was an "erupting legal act" can hardly be kept in the form described here.
How some media also want to mark "lateral thinkers and spiritual relatives" among judges and to derive the "right" to attack the independence of the judiciary selectively and according to concrete needs have been addressed by the reflection pages:
Court decisions that oppose corona measures have been criticized in some media in sometimes dubious sharpness. For example, the "Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland" asks why "judges would help the virus": "If you as a judge always want to wait for the escalation for reasons of proportionality, you will help the virus until then – and make the necessary interventions even more serious and lengthy." Because of the judgments of Weimar and Weilheim, the "taz" even sees a "Wild West rule of law" coming up and fears: "Even in the judiciary there are lateral thinkers and intellectual relatives."