Being an exception in the political systems of most countries before the 1970s, constitutional courts have become a common feature in Europe since the 3rd wave of democratisation. Usually, they are considered counter-majoritarian institutions or 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 to their composition.
This paper systematically tests the absorption hypothesis for Germany with data of constitutional complaints, concrete, and abstract review procedures for the years 1974 to 2010. We find that absorption varies over time (1) due to the fact that regularly courts are not entirely composed by other veto players, (2) that there are differing terms in office between the government and the court, and (3) because of varying veto player constellations resulting from different legislative procedures.
