"Unfit for Office!" - How Alice Weidel and a Right-Wing Conservative Platform Targeted a Constitutional Judge

It was no ordinary talk show. It was a cross-examination. A lesson in how political campaigns condense into personal attacks - and how a jurist who has dedicated her entire life to academia must defend herself against a maelstrom of half-truths, emotional agitation, and calculated scandalization. Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, professor of public law and for years one of the most distinguished voices in Germany’s constitutional discourse, was originally slated to be appointed judge at the Federal Constitutional Court. The conservative CDU/CSU bloc had initially agreed to the proposal. But then the nomination collapsed. Why? Not due to any legal shortcomings or a lack of understanding of the rule of law. But because of an orchestrated attack that exemplifies how quickly expertise can come under ideological fire. On July 16, 2025, Brosius-Gersdorf appeared on the ZDF talk show hosted by Markus Lanz - not as part of a panel, but in a one-on-one interview. The invitation was no honor, but a battle of defense. At the center: her previous comments on mandatory vaccination, the AfD party ban, and the role of the state in times of crisis. The attack had long since begun - on platforms like nius.de, a portal that for months has been pushing right-wing narratives, and through accounts like that of Alice Weidel. The AfD parliamentary leader wrote: "An enforcer of SPD party resolutions as a constitutional judge? Unfit for office!" It is a sentence that unmasks - not because it is true, but because it exposes the strategy. This is not about jurisprudence. This is not about the Basic Law. This is about the systematic discrediting of independent voices - under the guise of a supposedly endangered freedom of speech.

In truth, Brosius-Gersdorf never called for AfD voters to be “eliminated,” as was suggested. In 2024, she merely stated that banning a party would not automatically solve the problem of its supporters - a factually correct, though perhaps unfortunately worded, analysis of political reality. Nor did she ever demand that mandatory vaccination be introduced bypassing parliament, but pointed out in a constitutional discussion that the state also has a duty to protect its population - a notion that was discussed millions of times during the pandemic, including by CDU ministers. On Lanz’s show, she remained composed. Her voice remained calm, even when the host confronted her with accusations from plagiarism blogs and comments from the AfD echo chamber. She stated clearly: "Every scholar has positions." This was not an apology but a commitment to the responsibility of science in a democracy. Weidel and her allies want exactly the opposite. They are not concerned with legal quality but with political cleansing. They seek to fill judicial posts not based on competence but on ideology. They aim to replace the idea of an independent constitutional court with party-political loyalty. That nius.de willingly picks up and amplifies this narrative is no coincidence. The portal’s article contributes little to enlightenment but frames Brosius-Gersdorf’s statements selectively, failing to place them in their academic context. It is the method of framing: individual phrases are isolated, interpretations distorted, political opponents marked. The message: anyone who doesn’t fit into our worldview does not belong in the highest court.

What gets lost in all this: Brosius-Gersdorf has repeatedly advocated throughout her academic career for human dignity, for the fundamental right to education, and for protection against state arbitrariness. She is no “enforcer,” but a thinker - someone who takes constitutional law seriously, even in difficult times. At the end of the broadcast, she said that if her nomination damaged the reputation of the Constitutional Court, she would step back. An act of integrity rarely seen in the political arena. It is a bitter signal when one of the country’s best legal minds is pushed out - not by argument, but by the mechanics of an outrage-driven media machine. The question that remains: do we want judges who rule according to law and conscience - or those who submit to the fear of headlines?