Poland Crisis, Gov. takes Over Courts, EU threatens with suspension. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14825441
The Polish parliament passed a bill that would give parliament the power to appoint Supreme Court judges.

Guy Verhofstadt, the President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, has called on President Andrzej Duda to take action and said the European Commission should trigger the EU’s Article 7 if the issue is not resolved.

The Article has been described as a “nuclear option” and results to the suspension of a member country’s voting rights.

“The European Parliament made it clear earlier this week that these new laws are incompatible with EU Membership and would irredeemably weaken Poland’s future place in the West,” Mr Verhofstadt said.

He also took to Twitter to claim the "blitz against Polish judiciary [was] completed".



European Council President Donald Tusk, who is also a former Polish prime minister, called for an urgent meeting with President Duda to discuss the "political crisis" in the country.

Mr Tusk described the move as backwards backward and said it went "against European standards and values”.

"The European Union is not only money and procedures. It is first and foremost values and high standards of public life. That is why a wave of criticism of the government is rising in Europe and in the whole West," Mr Tusk said.

Lawyers and opposition politicians objected to the bill as it undermines democracy and the rule of law.

The move would put courts under direct government control and Poland's human rights ombudsman, Adam Bodnar, told parliament that the legislation, would "deprive citizens of the right to an independent court".

"We are planting an explosive under our judiciary," he said.

Since being elected in 2015, the Law and Justice party (PiS) has tightened its control over courts and prosecutors, as well as state media, and introduced restrictions on public gatherings.

Parliament has already passed a bill which ends the terms of current members of the National Council of the Judiciary, one of the main judicial bodies, and gives parliament powers to choose 15 of its 25 members.
#14825450
Mr Tusk described the move as backwards backward and said it went "against European standards and values”.


I like seeing the EU admit their purpose is to force standardized morality on everyone and will threaten you if you dare deviate. Once again, hubris will bring downfall. I give the EU 10 years at the most before it disintegrates.
#14825454
One Degree wrote:I like seeing the EU admit their purpose is to force standardized morality on everyone and will threaten you if you dare deviate.


The EU is and has always been proud to declare that dictatorships & banana republics are not welcome.

Polish protesters looking to the EU to protect them from their corrupt leaders trying to undo the separation of powers in their country, destroy their fragile democracy and turn them back into a Soviet banana.

The EU has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens whether they be Polish or British.

Image
#14825455
noemon wrote:The EU is and has always been proud to declare that dictatorships & banana republics are not welcome.

Polish protesters looking to the EU to protect them from their corrupt leaders trying to undo the separation of powers in their country, destroy their fragile democracy and turn them back into a Soviet banana.

The EU has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens whether they be Polish or British.

Image


Eastern Europe is seeing what is in store if they follow this liberal EU religion any further. They do not want to join the European Caliphate, and perhaps the winged horseman can save Europa once again from the clutches of the Islamist barbarians.
#14825456
noemon wrote:The EU is and has always been proud to declare that dictatorships & banana republics are not welcome.

Polish protesters looking to the EU to protect them from their corrupt leaders trying to undo the separation of powers in their country, destroy their fragile democracy and turn them back into a Soviet banana.

The EU has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens whether they be Polish or British.


The EU is a disaster for Eastern Europe. The EU wants these countries to adopt "liberalizing" reforms so that their governments won't be able to mount any effective resistance against Western economic domination.
#14825457
The EU is and has always been proud to declare that dictatorships & banana republics are not welcome.

@noemon
I am not familiar with the internal workings of the Polish government, but having the legislature select 15 or 25 Judges hardly sounds like a dictatorship to me. It actually sounds more democratic than having the executive appoint them for life.
#14825458
Saeko wrote:The EU is a disaster for Eastern Europe. The EU wants these countries to adopt "liberalizing" reforms so that their governments won't be able to mount any effective resistance against Western economic domination.


How is this commentary any less ridiculous than Islamists screeching about the western satan?

Are you going to start shouting "Allahu Akbar..God willing, the judiciary will succumb to whoever is in government? And let no goddam ape liberal speak of the separation of powers" next?

One Degree wrote:but having the legislature select 15 or 25 Judges hardly sounds like a dictatorship to me


Having the party in charge choose the Judges is more like a banana republic moving towards a dictatorship than a full blown dictatorship indeed. There is a reason the executive and the judiciary are separate and independent in democracies. These are conditions of membership in the EU and as such valid reasons for removal & sanctions as well.
#14825461
There is a reason the executive and the judiciary are separate and independent in democracies.


@noemon
Yes and it is a great theory as long as the judges appointed serve as jurists and not political appointees. Originally, people had enough personal honor to do this. That seems to be sadly lacking today. The US is a clear example of how easily this system can be corrupted to serve the goals of political parties. Why else are both parties so concerned with who selects the Supreme Court Judges if they expect them to truly act as jurists?
I am not sure who appoints them matters. It only works if they serve with honor. Therefore, I do not see the harm in Poland's choice.
#14825462
One Degree wrote:Why else are both parties so concerned with who selects the Supreme Court Judges if they expect them to truly act as jurists?
I am not sure who appoints them matters.


This. Does. Not. Compute. You understand that who appoints them matters to the parties but you do not understand it at the same time. :knife:
#14825463
So who selected the supreme court nominees before then? Was it some institution in Brussels? :eh:

If anything what Poland has done is move away from liberal progressive ideological nutjobs in Brussels, that is not a bad thing at all. I'm surprised how fanatically up in arms EU technocrats are about this legislature.
#14825467
Albert wrote:So who selected the supreme court nominees before then? Was it some institution in Brussels? :eh:

If anything what Poland has done is move away from liberal progressive ideological nutjobs in Brussels, that is not a bad thing at all. I'm surprised how fanatically up in arms EU technocrats are about this legislature.


The president of Poland. Yeah, very undemocratic to shift this power to the legislature. :lol:
#14825469
Albert wrote:So who selected the supreme court nominees before then? Was it some institution in Brussels? :eh:


Like in most normal democracies the Polish Judges choose their own Judges and not some party shill. The National Judicial Council of Poland proposes nominees to the President who then decrees their appointment.

Supreme Court of Poland wrote:This is done upon a motion of the National Judicial Council. The President also selects the First President of the court from candidates presented by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court.


Albert wrote:If anything what Poland has done is move away from liberal progressive ideological nutjobs in Brussels, that is not a bad thing at all.


Let us rejoice in the makings of yet another Banana Republic. Give the Courts over to whichever party is in charge and when the others get elected in power and change the Judges to their liking, sit and cry in the corner.

Albert wrote:I'm surprised how fanatically up in arms EU technocrats are about this legislature.


Outraged I say, outraged. Why should people adhere to the principles they officially signed up for? After all what is honour and a man's signature? For the alt-right, it's clearly nothing.

Saeko wrote:The president of Poland. Yeah, very undemocratic to shift this power to the legislature.


Of course it is fundamentally undemocratic and blatantly ridiculous, you shift the power of the National Judicial Council to party members. Party members will be choosing the Judges instead of the National Judicial Council and the General Assembly of the Supreme Court. The President does not select anybody but like the Queen of the UK merely signs the motions.

Having party members choose the Judges is quite fucked up as it gives party members leverage to avoid prosecution & charges. It's funny that someone needs to explain that to you Saeko-San.
#14825476
Like in most normal democracies the Polish Judges choose their own Judges and not some party shill. The National Judicial Council of Poland proposes nominees to the President who then decrees their appointment.

@noemon So the elected Representatives of the people have virtually no say? Well, we can't have someone doing away with that Democratic process. :lol:
As far as me not understanding the process, I believe I am well versed in it enough to know the judiciary real purpose was always to make sure the aristocracy remained in control of the legislative process. Why do you think they are appointed? Local judges are often elected and no one seems to think that is undemocratic. This is allowed because they can simply be overruled by appointed judges at the higher level.
#14825478
States without separation of powers are not democracies but banana republics where figureheads and party-officials rule with impunity.

Separation of Powers wrote:The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division is into three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, which is the trias politica model. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in some parliamentary systems where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.


One Degree wrote:So the elected Representatives of the people have virtually no say? Well, we can't have someone doing away with that Democratic process. :lol:


Party officials are not elected in any country to appoint Judges unless you would rather live in some Soviet Republic where party officials appointed everybody. The legislature is elected to make laws that is their mandate in the democratic process, not to be given leverage to escape the very laws they make.

One Degree wrote:As far as me not understanding the process,


You said that you do not understand how who-appointing-who matters:

One Degree wrote:Why else are both parties so concerned with who selects the Supreme Court Judges if they expect them to truly act as jurists?
I am not sure who appoints them matters


But you do understand that it matters for political parties. So which one is it? Do you understand how it matters or do you not understand how it matters?
#14825489
@noemon
States without separation of powers are not democracies but banana republics where figureheads and party-officials rule with impunity.

I am familiar with the theory. You do realize this came about as a compromise with the Monarchy and Aristocracy to share power.
The US simply copied the basic structure. The Senate being the originally unelected equivalent of the House of Lords.
The judges appointed because you can not let the peasants have that kind of power.
Today, we have simply given this theory 'saintly' status it's origins does not deserve because it has worked fairly well.

Party officials are not elected in any country to appoint Judges unless you would rather live in some Soviet Republic where party officials appointed everybody. The legislature is elected to make laws that is their mandate in the democratic process, not to be given leverage to escape the very laws they make.

This process is not affected by who appoints them. The division of power is set out in the constitutions. The judiciary gets their power from the laws, not from who appoints them.



You said that you do not understand how who-appointing-who matters:

I just now understood your confusion. Saying it did not matter which party was only if the judges appointed were true jurists without political affiliation. This was the ideal of who should be appointed. We have corrupted that so they are now political appointees. My comment now means that it does not matter which person in the controlling party appoints them. The President or the Legislature does not matter because they will both make political appointments.


But you do understand that it matters for political parties. So which one is it? Do you understand how it matters or do you not understand how it matters?

Hopefully, my above comments clarify this.

I agree. ....and tet you have completely ign[…]

I'm not confused at all about both of you whining[…]

I see. You have no argument. Just feelings. An[…]

Revolutionary Hope

Well, since you aren't going to argue your side a[…]