{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014164305949008499, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00141643059490085, 'mean_word_length': 5.669811320754717, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Romanian Constitutional Court: Law, Politics and Judicial Activism

The embodiment of twentieth century constitutionalism,1 constitutional adjudication appears to be relied upon as an absolute constitutional insurance by many Central and East European countries in their transitions to democracy. Moreover, the absence of a constitutional court or another means of constitutional adjudication has tended to cast long shadows of suspicion over the democratic character of a country. Clearly, however, the existence of a constitutional court is no panacea. The paradox that democracy is to be ensured by the existence of an institution whose democratic legitimacy is quite insecure is largely overlooked.