Arne Cools, Cédric Labens, Liselotte Leenaerts and Manon Moerman (master students UGent), Jurgen Goossens (doctoral researcher, UGent) and Pieter Cannoot (assistant, UGent)
Following his recent passing, the succession of Antonin Scalia, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), has sparked heated discussions in the United States for some time now. After all, there is a lot at stake. A new justice within SCOTUS could shift the ideological balance within the Court. In Belgium, the appointment of a new judge within the Constitutional Court is seldom a hot topic of discussion. This blog post analyzes the main similarities and differences between the Belgian Constitutional Court and SCOTUS regarding various aspects of the political or ideological positioning of the judge. How are both courts composed, and what is the appointment procedure for judges? To what extent do political and ideological convictions have a visible influence on the decision-making process of both courts? Lastly, we will examine the possibility and desirability of introducing dissenting and concurring opinions in the Belgian Constitutional Court, comparable to SCOTUS.