3 ms·

> This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took po

> This comment misrepresents the situation by failing to indicate that the 'Constitutional Crisis' started before the current Law and Justice government took power by the previous governments flagrant anti-constitutional actions of trying to appoint Supreme Court Judges ahead of the end of their terms. It was the Constitutional Court, not Supreme Court. Also, no, not really - that didn't start the crisis in any reasonable meaning of that word. In a correctly functioning democracy that would simply be blocked by Constitutional Court, and that's in fact exactly what happened. The problem started when currently ruling party replaced not only the extraneous judges, but also those judges who were lawfully supposed to be appointed by previous government. Of course the Constitutional Court deemed that unconstitutional, but that didn't stop the ruling party at all, and the rest is history.

jariel 6y ago
"Also, no, not really - that didn't start the crisis in any reasonable meaning of that word." The entire world disagrees with this. The issue, in public, is very clear - actions by the the previous government in the summer of 2015 were declared anti-constitutional, and later actions highly undemocratic. There is no doubt that this was the 'start of the crisis' by any objective measure. It doesn't matter how much we may not like certain 'current authorities' - History is History - people should stop trying to rewrite it to suit their narrative. Suppressing these unfortunate events is not going to help anyone's cause in the long run.
mamon 6y ago
> ruling party replaced not only the extraneous judges, but also those judges who were lawfully supposed to be appointed by previous government The problem is that previous government broke the law in more than one way: 1. They appointed more judges that they were allowed to. 2. They did appoint all those judges by means of single parliamentary resolution, despite the fact that Polish Constitution clearly requires voting for each judge separately. Given those two points NONE of the judges was appointed lawfully, and there was no other way forward than repeal the whole resolution, therefore removing all 5 unlawfully appointed judges.
- garaetjjte 6y ago
  Uh, whose interpretation is that? Constitutional tribunal ruled itself that three judges were correctly appointed by previous parliament. (case K34/15)
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  > and there was no other way forward than repeal the whole resolution That's not what happened though. The Constitutional Court ruling[1] deemed the appointment of three judges constitutional, and two of them unconstitutional - and, according to the Constitution, those rulings are final, immutable and to be immediately published. However, president Duda didn't swear any of the new judges, despite of being legally obliged to (the president doesn't have the right to decide whether the judges were appointed legally or not, it's the Constitutional Court's job) and once PiS appointed five new judges (instead of two they were legally able to) the president swore them all. [1] https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/wyroki/art/8748-ustawa-o-trybunale-konstytucyjnym https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/wyroki/art...

jariel 6y ago

"Also, no, not really - that didn't start the crisis in any reasonable meaning of that word." The entire world disagrees with this. The issue, in public, is very clear - actions by the the previous government in the summer of 2015 were declared anti-constitutional, and later actions highly undemocratic. There is no doubt that this was the 'start of the crisis' by any objective measure. It doesn't matter how much we may not like certain 'current authorities' - History is History - people should stop trying to rewrite it to suit their narrative. Suppressing these unfortunate events is not going to help anyone's cause in the long run.

mamon 6y ago

> ruling party replaced not only the extraneous judges, but also those judges who were lawfully supposed to be appointed by previous government The problem is that previous government broke the law in more than one way: 1. They appointed more judges that they were allowed to. 2. They did appoint all those judges by means of single parliamentary resolution, despite the fact that Polish Constitution clearly requires voting for each judge separately. Given those two points NONE of the judges was appointed lawfully, and there was no other way forward than repeal the whole resolution, therefore removing all 5 unlawfully appointed judges.

garaetjjte 6y ago
Uh, whose interpretation is that? Constitutional tribunal ruled itself that three judges were correctly appointed by previous parliament. (case K34/15)
seba_dos1 6y ago
> and there was no other way forward than repeal the whole resolution That's not what happened though. The Constitutional Court ruling[1] deemed the appointment of three judges constitutional, and two of them unconstitutional - and, according to the Constitution, those rulings are final, immutable and to be immediately published. However, president Duda didn't swear any of the new judges, despite of being legally obliged to (the president doesn't have the right to decide whether the judges were appointed legally or not, it's the Constitutional Court's job) and once PiS appointed five new judges (instead of two they were legally able to) the president swore them all. [1] https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/wyroki/art/8748-ustawa-o-trybunale-konstytucyjnym https://trybunal.gov.pl/postepowanie-i-orzeczenia/wyroki/art...