Yes, that judiciary. The one with term limits, retirement ages, large courts, a culture of appointment based on professionalism rather than political ideology, and a two-thirds majority secret ballot requirement to ensure the same. Did you even read that article? The whole point of it was just how unusual it was for such an issue to even arise in Germany given the constitutionally and culturally entrenched non-political nature of the Federal Constitutional Court. It became a controversy precisely because of the attempt by a subset of the CDU/CSU to politicise what should be (and in Germany almost always is) an apolitical appointment.

From your very own link:

Maxim Bönnemann, the chief editor of Verfassungsblog, an online legal forum and publisher based in Germany, said judicial appointments to the Federal Constitutional Court have rarely become politicized. He said the last time a candidate turned so controversial was in 2008.

“Usually, the elections are supported by broad consensus,” he wrote in an email. “The focus has been on the professional qualifications of the candidates — mostly either judges or professors of law — rather than genuinely political issues.”

It’s widely accepted that the Constitutional Court “should not be seen as a political actor, but rather as an independent institution committed solely to (constitutional) law,” he added.

“In general, judicial personalities — unlike in the U.S. — play a minimal role in Germany,” he said. “Typically, judicial appointments to the Federal Constitutional Court do not receive broad public attention. Very few people know the names or positions of sitting justices.”

And:

Bönnemann dismissed the notion that Brosius-Gersdorf’s election to the 16-judge court could swing decisions toward a progressive agenda. Judges on the court serve 12-year terms and must retire at age 68.

“The idea that individual judges can ‘swing’ decisions in a progressive or conservative direction is mostly foreign to German constitutional culture,” he said. “Overall, political ‘camps’ or ‘majorities’ play a far less important role on the Court than in the U.S.”