[pgorczak]

The process makes sense from a separation of powers perspective. When there’s an especially fine line between what legislative wants and (constitutional) judicative allows, there has to be some rejections.

This is probably one of the cases where lawmakers feel some spite about constitutional courts exerting too much influence over their work. It would be easier if they’d just talk about it before going through the whole process but I guess creating frustration is part of the point here.

[goodrubyist]

That's not how it works at least in the US, but I don't know about Germany. SCOTUS claims that the judicial system is not for reviewing all the acts passed for constitutionality, but (as per Article III) only addressing specific harms brought up by individuals (the requirement for standing). This is from a 1992 precedent:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent 2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court 3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

Talking in advance about what law is constitutional would be perverse under such system (I love the standing doctrine, btw and so does the Chief Justice).

[pgorczak]

AFAICT it really is different in Germany. The constitutional court can also be called by other courts, by the government or by parliament to check already passed laws.