They want?
it is not their place to want anything, only to determine what the basic law demands.

More fundamental, though, is the UTTER irrelevancy of HOW a bill is passed (so long as that process itself is constituttional, not in doubt here), only whether or not it is constitutional or not.
It is ridiculous to make that decision, constitutional or not, even only by implicit suggestion, dependent on a voting pattern that is more than a constitutionally aecceptable vote of the parliament

Where in the Basic Law is THAT requirement?

This is the worst sort of activist judges imposing their own will, as we just recently saw with John Robert’s completely questionable parsing of “tax” during the Obama-care vote.

This is not the first time alas, and surely in no small part due to the extremely political selection process used to appoint BVerfG justices (by which I don’t mean to imply at all that it is better here in the US…)

Sad!