Being an exemption in the political systems of most countries before the 70s, constitutional courts have become a common feature in Europe since the 3rd wave of democratisation began. Generally, it is assumed that constitutional courts are veto players because they can use abstract and concrete review procedures to stop governmental legislation. Tsebelis on the contrary argues that they are only formally veto players, however, in fact always absorbed due their composition. He assumes that they are entirely composed by other veto players, thus situated in their core and absorbed.
This paper argues that this is not the case. We find that courts are usually not absorbed due (1) the fact that usually courts are not entirely composed by other veto players and (2) even if they are, they are not absorbed after a government change any more due to differing terms in office.
