The Brosius-Gersdorf Case: A Mirror of Our Time

The withdrawal of Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf from her candidacy for the Federal Constitutional Court on August 8, 2025 marks a turning point that goes far beyond the person and the office. What is revealed here is the true face of a country that gets lost in endless debates about right-wing extremism while overlooking the real disease: we have become a society of informers, a people that finds perverse satisfaction in pointing fingers at others. What began as a seemingly formal matter - the election of a highly qualified jurist to the Federal Constitutional Court - ended in a public spectacle of malice. The 54-year-old law professor from Potsdam, nominated by the SPD and initially met with broad approval, became the plaything of a campaign that broke all bounds of decency.

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group, which had initially signaled its approval, pulled the emergency brake on the day of the vote. Suddenly the elections of three constitutional judges had to be postponed. What followed were weeks of the public dismantling of a person who suddenly had to justify herself on issues such as abortion, as if she were standing before a tribunal. SPD parliamentary group leader Matthias Miersch spoke in an internal letter of shaken trust. The CDU/CSU leadership had repeatedly signaled its approval, only to distance itself in the end. "Those who act in this way may get their way in the short term, but in the long term they paralyze parliament and squander trust in democracy," Miersch wrote. Nevertheless, he still believes in a viable basis with the coalition partner: "I am convinced that we still share this attitude, despite all the friction, in substance with our coalition partner."

The rhetoric of outrage

Ralf Stegner spoke of a historic day on which the "right-wing mob" had celebrated a triumph and evoked Weimar conditions. For him it was clear: the democratic parties had failed - the political scalp, as Stegner put it, now hung from Björn Höcke's belt. But is it really the "right-wing mob" that has triumphed here? Or is it rather a society that has lost itself in its own culture of outrage? Juso leader Philipp Türmer promptly called for the resignation of CDU/CSU parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn: "Jens Spahn must take responsibility and go!" The Green parliamentary group leaders Katharina Dröge and Britta Haßelmann doubted the coalition's ability to act and described Brosius-Gersdorf as an "excellent, highly qualified jurist." They accused Spahn of no longer being able to keep his word: "A parliamentary group leader of a governing party whose word no longer counts, neither to the coalition partner nor to other democratic groups, is unfit for such a responsible task."

Everyone pointed fingers, everyone knew exactly who was to blame. Only one allegedly showed self-criticism: Jens Spahn himself, friend of the Republicans, who regretted "that this situation could also arise due to the late addressing of our substantive concerns." He expressly condemned, whatever that meant, the "demeaning and insulting criticism" that Brosius-Gersdorf had to endure, and emphasized her "legal expertise and personal integrity." Brosius-Gersdorf herself spoke in her withdrawal statement of a smear campaign that had in part been generated by artificial intelligence. She criticized the use of anonymous sources in reporting as "unacceptable." "To participate anonymously in media criticism up to and including defamation of others, while at the same time demanding protection from defamation for oneself, is contradictory," she wrote.

But this is precisely where the dilemma becomes apparent: in an age in which anyone can be a judge over anyone, in which social media becomes the place of execution, in which campaigns can be orchestrated - who still protects the integrity of discourse? Engagement with the state's duty to protect refugees - including those without residence status. What was intended as a differentiated legal argument quickly became the target of right-wing extremist agitation: AfD-affiliated platforms and so-called alternative media tore individual passages out of context, stylized them into an alleged abolition of the right to asylum, and accused the jurist of having a "constitutional agenda." The defamation culminated in personal attacks, some with anti-Semitic and sexist overtones. But the criticism did not come only from the right. Even from liberal and left-wing circles, there were occasional questions as to whether Brosius-Gersdorf, given her academic positions, was a sufficiently neutral choice to chair the Ethics Council - albeit in a much more factual tone. At the same time, a peculiar dynamic unfolded on social networks, consisting of automated outrage, artificially generated posts, text-image montages, and anonymous profiles, creating the public impression of an organic "shitstorm" without it always being clear whether real people were behind it. The debate was further sharpened by contributions from traditional media outlets, which in some cases relied on anonymous sources, spread interpretations without sufficient context, and in doing so, from Brosius-Gersdorf's point of view, violated journalistic due diligence. The core of her resignation statement was therefore less directed against political opposition than against a toxic interplay of distortion, loss of inhibitions, and the removal of boundaries - fueled by an economy of outrage that in the end neither sources nor truth could withstand.

Lower Saxony's Justice Minister Kathrin Wahlmann spoke of an "unprecedented campaign" against an outstanding expert. "Not only for the person, but also with regard to the institution" such a discussion could cause damage. SPD leader Bärbel Bas warned of damage to democracy and spoke of a "smear campaign that should concern us." What Brosius-Gersdorf had to endure from "right-wing networks" was "unprecedented." Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig called for consequences: "What is important to me: we need more care and objectivity in our debates. Campaigns must not result in losing talented and qualified applicants - and especially female applicants. This is a development we simply cannot afford and that is in the interest neither of our constitutional state nor of the Federal Constitutional Court."

The culture of destruction

But is it really only a problem from the right? Or are we not rather living in a time in which agitation and denunciation have become a national sport? Where the failure of others is celebrated like a victory? Where it is "cool" to point the finger at someone? A journalist spells a name wrong - immediately a shitstorm pours down on him. Another uncovers something, tries to start a project - the reaction: "Mostly just watch." But for agitation, for the public pillory, there is always time, there are always resources. Commentator Michael Hanfeld of the FAZ accused Brosius-Gersdorf of not knowing press law because she criticized the use of anonymous sources. "It is by no means 'unacceptable' to work with anonymous sources. Without them, journalists could not uncover grievances in many cases," he wrote, pointing to Article 5 of the Basic Law and the press code. He questioned whether she knew press law and criticized her for wanting to tell journalists to exclude criticism. Hanfeld is right that anonymous sources are a necessary tool of journalism and that their use is not per se impermissible. But the way he argues ignores the complex balancing of source protection, transparency, public interest, and the risk of abuse. A professionally sound debate must focus precisely on this balancing act - and not just wave Article 5 and the press code.

Cem-Odos Gueler of the taz spoke of the "hour of the anti-feminists" and accused the CDU/CSU of having helped the "self-proclaimed pro-lifers, the church fundamentalists and illiberal forces to a success in parliament." "It is the hour of the anti-feminists, and they have tasted blood," he wrote dramatically. Technically a clean polarizing commentary, but strongly aimed at impact rather than analysis. The text achieves emotional mobilization but loses depth and differentiation. For a strong opinion piece in the taz this is consistent, but for an analytical consideration it would be too one-dimensional.

Everyone had their interpretation, everyone knew better, everyone pointed fingers. The Greens not only accused the CDU/CSU but also the SPD of weakness: "We wonder why the SPD was apparently willing to accept a no from the CDU. This behavior is weak." Left Party leader Ines Schwerdtner described the events as a "disgrace for the federal government" and sneered that the SPD had "the assertiveness of a sleeping rabbit." She demanded for her party a right of proposal and a seat at the table in future judicial elections, making a little capital out of necessity. The Brosius-Gersdorf case is a mirror of our society - and what we see in it is not very edifying. A highly qualified jurist who withdraws after "careful consideration" because she no longer wants or is able to withstand public hostility. A politics that indulges in mutual blame. Media accusing each other of campaign journalism.

Rhineland-Palatinate's Minister President Alexander Schweitzer put it succinctly: Brosius-Gersdorf, "the victim of a campaign with an untarnished legal reputation, solved a problem by withdrawing that she did not cause herself." He called for better cooperation in the coalition: "This government is doomed to succeed. I can only hope that everyone keeps this in mind, above all Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz."

The real problem

What remains is a coalition that after only three months appears as fractured as the traffic light coalition after three years. SPD leader Bärbel Bas sees trust in the CDU/CSU damaged: "Of course that has left its mark, I will not deny that. The CDU/CSU must now clarify internally how it will deal with such a situation in the future so that it does not happen again - and it must also restore trust with the SPD parliamentary group." What remains is a society that loses itself in its outrage and in doing so forgets what it is actually about: the appointment to one of the most important offices in our constitutional state. SPD leader Lars Klingbeil regretted the step and spoke of "hostility" that was "in no way acceptable." "Those who ultimately did not stand by their word within the coalition must urgently work out what happened. Such an incident must not be repeated." In all the noise, what Brosius-Gersdorf set out with surgical precision in her statement is lost: the refutation of the allegations made against her. She expressed effusive thanks to the SPD, the Greens and the Left Party, who stood by her until the end. But who still cares in a time when the campaign is more important than the truth, when the scandal counts more than the substance?

How grateful we must be for every person who still has the courage in this poisoned atmosphere to expose themselves publicly, to seek office, to take responsibility. How grateful we must be for everyone who does not participate in the great finger-pointing, the constant denunciation, the gleeful destruction. People will continue to discuss the legal problem in Germany. People will continue to look for and find those to blame. People will continue to point fingers. The Brosius-Gersdorf case shows the face of Germany in 2025. It is not a beautiful face. It is the face of a society that fights itself and still believes it is in the right. It is the face of a time in which everyone is both judge and executioner, in which public execution via social media has become the norm.

Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf has decided she is no longer available. One cannot blame her. The only question is: who will dare to make themselves available in the future? SPD leader Bärbel Bas asked precisely this question: "Who actually puts themselves through this anymore?" Who will still have the courage to seek public office? Who will still be willing to expose themselves to the mob - whether from the right, the left, or the center?

"This government is doomed to succeed," said Alexander Schweitzer. But how is anything supposed to succeed in an atmosphere of permanent mistrust, constant suspicion, and endless campaigning? How is democracy supposed to work if every attempt at understanding is nipped in the bud by the next wave of outrage? It is the decisive question of our time. Because if no one puts themselves through it anymore, if the reasonable withdraw, if only the loudmouths remain - what will become of our democracy? The Brosius-Gersdorf case is over. The SPD will propose a new candidate. The CDU/CSU will consider whether to agree this time. The media will report. The social networks will be outraged. And somewhere the next campaign will already be prepared, the next victim chosen, the next finger ready to point.

Welcome to Germany 2025. Welcome to a time in which hate triumphs and reason capitulates. The Brosius-Gersdorf case is only a symptom. The disease runs deeper. And it has a name: it is the collective inability to often still treat each other with respect, to forgive mistakes, to make compromises. It is the joy of destruction that distracts from the fact that many, lonely or frightened by these times, sit on their kitchen chairs, the cultivated addictive reflex for the next moral explosion, anything that distracts from their own worries and problems.

One does not have to be a prophet to know: it will continue. The next campaign is sure to come. The next victim is already waiting. And we will all watch, some will participate, and most will remain silent. Until it hits them themselves. But then it will be too late.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.