It seems the public has one more time lost to politics. The political mainstream of the opposition for a minute gave the voice to the outraged action of abstaining from the opposition's vote in order to pass on another monster writing task about SN – but the situation is seemingly returning to normal. After all, Pl 2050 cannot play the function of the “only righteous” against the “distorting regulation of law” politicians of the PO, can it? So, according to today's trends, mainstream voting against the unconstitutional bill is not only a noble naivety, but a game in favour of the Law. The real politician had a work to aid power push this bill. Why? due to the fact that PiS propaganda would drive the opposition distant as the 1 that deprives Poles of European money from the KPO.
One specified vote of "normalising relations" between the main organization of the opposition and recklessly hostile voters is last text by Marcin Matczak in Gazeta Wyborcza. I besides urge comments under it. Compare them with a somewhat earlier comments under the position of Polish citizens concerning the same case.
Law and policy
I'm moving for election. As the “uncontested” 1 who wants to defend “inalienable values”, which Matczak finds naive and irresponsible, I feel called to the board and forced to respond. I do this reluctantly, but without any peculiar difficulty, despite the considerable differences in competence in the legal issues discussed here. So he writes Matczak:
‘Voting against the bill, which was a mix of good ideas (an extended test of independence) and bad ones (disciplinary proceedings in the administrative court) would induce ecstasy of propaganda. This is simply a well-known PiS catch – acceptance in the package, everything or nothing, and if you disagree, it means that you put a stick in the spokes of good, ba!, the best change. And the hatred device starts, and almost 3 billion are working to convince Poles that the opposition is traitors, Germans, Bolsheviks or even worse. You couldn't play that game.“
Here, therefore, prof. Marcin Matczak, who is openly ostentatious, submits to the law of the political interest, which the regulation of law ruins at its very foundation, due to the fact that they trust on the inviolability of principles independently of political interests. But Marcin Matczak is describing in this place the political interest, expressed in this way straight by Donald Tusk, announcing that the opposition abstained. The mother's business explains, knowing him fully, as I do – due to the fact that to realize him easily, although unlike Mother's, I think that it was not only possible, but it was absolutely essential to play this game alternatively of continuing to engage in a series of acts of extraordinary and non-preservation.
Clear Law
In a moment, about why my knowing of the attitude of politicians is not accompanied by acceptance, while we request to deal with the legal message of Matczak, what I do with embarrassment – Matczak is not only a titled lawyer, but a prominent and well-deserved authority, and I have barely a degree. And this legal authority gives the primacy of politics over the constitution a character no more or less, only a doctrine consistent with the “philosophy of our constitution, which provides for a mechanics for weighing unconstitutionality”.
"It is not like being pregnant according to the Constitution with unconstitutionality," he writes. “It can be graded, it can be larger or smaller, and sometimes completely consistent with the constitution is that we accept the unconstitutionality of the smaller to avoid the greater.”
And then:
"This is what the opposition did. She considered it little unconstitutional that the Act on SN violates Article 184 of the Polish Constitution, which clearly states what administrative courts can do, and thus excludes entrusting them with disciplinary matters of judges. She considered it more unconstitutional that in Poland the position of neojudge could not be effectively questioned, which frequently deprives citizens of the right to a actual court. That's why she agreed to 1 to fix the other. She temporarily accepted the incompatibility with Article 184, due to the fact that she would be able to remove it in the legislature to correct systemic unconstitutionality – judging by the judges.”
Oh, no. Legally speaking, definitely not. The designation of constitutionality is not a prerogative of any group of MPs or even senators – it belongs to the courts, although (which I have been able to show many times and I consider to be my own top achievement) not only to the courts, but besides to the general courts. Courts, nevertheless – not politicians. That's 1 thing.
The second is the legislature amendments, which, of course, will not remove any unconstitutionality. Not bigger or smaller. If we talk of the senate, then the lawyer who, unlike me, is Prof. Matczak, the constitutional regulation of law would have served more unbelievably by showing legal finesse in an act of political folly, but suggesting that the legislature does not just amend – which the Sejm effectively rejects with the votes of the PiS and the Ziobrists – and rejecting the bill in its entirety, which would force the Sejm to vote again, and then the bill could fail. If the opposition had voted this time alternatively of holding back. Well, at this point, it's beautiful clear that Matczak doesn't want that. due to the fact that “you cannot play this game” – that is, “Germans, Bolsheviks, or even worse”, and due to the fact that then the position of neojudges cannot be undermined, which is “an unconstitutionality greater”. However, a lawyer and practices should, if he speaks, say in fact that the legislature amendments will not change anything, while the legislature rejection of the full bill – yes, it could.
The conviction of the unconstitutionality of the greater, which would last if the opposition failed a written project, did not withstand criticism for 2 reasons. The first is that the position of a neojudge allows you to effectively request its exclusion from the process, which succeeds not only sometimes, but seems to be just generally. due to the fact that the courts endure force better than politicians despite infecting them with neojudges. The second reason is already purely political – Matczak mistakenly assumes that after the collapse of the written project, the substance would simply stand on what we have now. That's not true. She couldn't.
But in legal arguments Prof. Matczak went further. He cited Article 190.3, which allows to keep unconstitutional provisions. This, however, is – I dare to judge, with all my own legal incompetence – the equivalent beyond a decent measure. Not because, as Matczak notes, this provision concerns decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal alternatively than opposition. due to the fact that an unconstitutional provision can be maintained if its change violates the state's finances and can only be done for a limited period of time, allowing the legislator to solve this budgetary problem. Here we are dealing with a situation in which the repair of the constitutional bull improves the state's money, not the another way around. We are dealing with a situation not only in this respect, but besides in any another way – simply completely incomparable.
Let us go back to politics, which most likely does not contradict Marcin Matczak's intention to admit her constitutional superiority over "inconstitutionality less".
Clean Politics
She does not realize only Marcin Matczak, but besides quite a few politicians, including those who engaged in the fight for the regulation of law and did it very sincerely. In the parliament, they saw their own function only in making requests for amendments, helpless against the arithmetic of the parliamentary votes, then spreading their hands in the belief that they had done what they could do. That's a false belief.
In 2018, no of them thought that prof. Gersdorf would be able to keep his own word of office in accordance with the constitution of the First president of the ultimate Court. That the word of office will besides be maintained by the "old judges" of the SN, which is even more crucial today, due to the fact that it prejudges that the ultimate Court has not become an unfree puppet of Ziobra and PiS. This happened not due to any changes in seismic arithmetic. The corresponding fresh of the Law and Justice has voted with his own hands – yielding to force and taking into account costs completely outside the hall of the Sejm meetings. The fact that, unlike the votes in the Sejm, the political bill here does not seem to know, nor does Matczak, although he was active in the action that led to it, nor did politicians who did not participate in it, and who were already in the hands of the win-win situation, and are about to squander the top accomplishment of the civic democratic movement.
A immense social action involving respective 100 1000 people, large demonstrations, long-term, forceful actions of civilian disobedience, a huge, repressive effort of many people, the unbreakable rule of many judges who pay the price to this day, and the long-standing hard work of the best Polish lawyers – this long-standing action carried out with awesome consequences led the PiS to a pata, in which in the conflict for courts it has to capitulate spectacularly to get the essential EU money for it as well. Politicians did not decision a finger on the matter, always – inactive due to the same fears of the papal propaganda and inactive hiding behind the inability of seismic arithmetic even erstwhile it began to service them – they openly distanced themselves from it, refusing to participate and openly repressing the fewer brave in their own ranks. Unfortunately, the fact looks just like this and it doesn't want to look different for anything. This pat has been going on for a good fewer years. The opposition did not take any initiative in this matter. The bill on courts was prepared by social organizations for it. The parties had to force him. He's the 1 who can unlock EU money immediately. The written legal monsters will not do so, which should be clear after so many years and so many announced returns, when, for example, in the changed war in Ukraine the situation was visited by Poland Ursula von der Leyen and the substance was to be settled, according to many, that the Union is selling Polish regulation of law in exchange for the essential normalization of relations with Ukraine. EU politicians do not neglect what we cannot say about ours. The social bill was brought into the parliament under pressure, procrastination as if a draft of power had been deliberately placed there earlier, nothing was done to take the initiative that was itself pushing itself into the hands. The regulation of law and the political initiative are like a pregnancy, yes. Yes – yes; no – no. but this is about unwanted pregnancy. present Prof. Matczak considers it wise to support a writer's legal monster and finds constitutional justification for him. The Pisca propaganda has acted on it so that it already believes that apostasy from the Constitution will bring us EU money and that is what it will do. It's the another way around. This is breaking the law, not trying to reconstruct it, it's ruining relations with the Union. Constitutional regulation must simply be restored. It's been politically possible for respective years. But you'd gotta want this pregnancy.
