Poland Crisis, Gov. takes Over Courts, EU threatens with suspension. - Page 2 - 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

#14825500
One Degree wrote:@noemon

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.


Even if I agreed with this I do not see any relevance as the separation of power does not have "saintly status" but constitutional authority and EU authority as well as it is part of the terms and conditions for joining. The separation of powers is a fundamental concept of democracy since the antiquity:

Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers wrote:]The arguments for this position will be presented in three chapters. The first will trace the origins of the theory of mixed constitution to antiquity and especially Polybius’ Histories,4 while underscoring similarities between Polybius’ system and that of the American Constitution. Other sources will include Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, his pupil Dicaearchus of Messana, Diogenes Laertius, and Cicero.



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.

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.


You are confused about very many things. First of all, "we" does not apply as you are American and we are talking about the Polish system. It is important to be concise instead of making generalised statements that have no communicative meaning whatsoever as hardly anyone understands what it is that you want to express and even if one did, it would still be irrelevant as Poland is not the US. Second and more important, this not about removing the power from the President to the Legislature but from the National Judicial Council to the Legislature. This is removing the independence of the Judges and passing it to party officials. This is the very definition of political affiliation. Considering the fact that you find political affiliations as wrong one can only wonder why it is that you find it right in Poland's case. Is it only because for some reason the name EU is involved and you find it impossible to agree with a body that you apparently hate?

OP:

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.


And of course it matters if the Judges choose the Judges or if party officials choose the Judges. When party officials are given this power they use it to appoint their own associates who can then forget to prosecute them if need be. What happens then is an erosion of civic life, disregard for the rule of law and the eventual destruction of the nation-state and its pillars.

Saeko wrote:Soon they'll be passing laws that benefit themselves and their constituents!


First and foremost by removing the right of their citizens to an independent judiciary.

For some silly reason you assume that every fascist is a good fascist.
#14825504
noemon wrote:First and foremost by removing the right of their citizens to an independent judiciary.

For some silly reason you assume that every fascist is a good fascist.

This is a very valid point, and I often give Saeko heat for basically LARPing. The last thing we want to do is revive the 1930s.

But in the current situation, put yourself in our shoes for a moment.

What exactly is the alternative? "Liberal democracy" has a very sophisticated means of controlling Western countries. Let's walk through them:

Independent media: Concentrates the means of propaganda into an oligarchy (either based on capital or academic/liberal credentials) which opposes us

Independent central banks: Concentrates the power to create money into the hands of the financial oligarchy

Free and fair elections: Allows the oligarchy to control national governments by using the means of propaganda to influence the outcome of elections (sometimes goes wrong for them ofc)

Independent judiciary: Allows the oligarchy to overturn laws opposed to their interests and even make new laws in some countries (e.g. USA)
I am oversimplifying of course, and please do not think that I dispute the value of these institutions in general. Unlike Saeko I support all of these things to some degree.

But with respect to the specific issue at hand, right now we have a situation in which judges in many Western countries are used to not only nullify laws they disagree with but actually make legislation.

I am not a Pole and do not speak Polish, but viewing Poland from the outside it seems they are taking their country back.

How do you suggest dealing with this?
#14825511
Dave wrote:What exactly is the alternative?

How do you suggest dealing with this?


For whom is the key question, for which political entity? What we have right now is a level-playing field or at least as level as it can get with varying degrees of level depending on the country. The Polish action is a step back in the wrong direction as it makes politics, money and judiciary even more intertwined than it already is.

Dealing with this is only in the eye of the beholder, a communist will say that all decisions should be made in and by worker councils. An aristocrat will say that decisions should be taken only by the enlightened.

What we have right now is actually pretty good, better than it has ever been in human history in terms of civic rights, the main problem is that people are either not aware or keen to use their political rights to assemble, organise and mobilise for their common interests against their actual enemies. The problem has always been in education. For the system to be optimal it requires active participation, and not just by voting but by participating in the political dialogue through and through(city councils, party meetings, union meetings, etcetera). Political life is far too boring and difficult compared to social-media and television life. And this is not just now but it has always been so, people always preferred drinking and having sex than attending some council meeting. It is only when their livelihoods is being threatened that they would actually make an effort and would usually be too late. That is why decisions are almost always taken by those with a clear stake in the game.
#14825514
@noemon,
The key question for us is preventing ourselves from being replaced. This is the central question in every single Western country, and even a few non-Western countries (e.g. Bahrain). Poland and her fellow Visegrad states are acting decisively against this. The question in these countries I suppose is whether they are unnecessarily transforming themselves into dictatorships using the excuse of protecting the indigenous population. It would hardly be the first time a government did such a thing.

The situation is clearly not good. Families and birth rates are collapsing, Western populations are being replaced (though not in the Visegrad countries!), postwar international law has collapsed, and the working class has been substantially imiserated (sp?).

To your specific issue of civic rights, these rights are in fact declining in many Western countries. Legally in many European countries, and functionally in the United States in that you can be deprived of your income for holding dissident opinions.

Of course, none of these problems are to say that attacking the judiciary is the answer. As an American that is an emotionally appealing solution for me however for various reasons that need not be elaborated in the Europe forum.

Education will never turn an ordinary person into someone who is politically interested. You're either politically interested or you're not it seems. And being interested is no guarantee of being right, as has been debate since the ancient times of your country.
#14825524
Dave wrote: Poland and her fellow Visegrad states are acting decisively against this.


The Visegrad administrations are merely trying to cash in the current anti-immigrant political bandwagon. They are not acting decisively against anything but merely trying to stay in power with circus and theatre like everybody else. They are not in a mission for anything other than keeping their chairs and these countries have never been in any multi-cultural danger of any kind.

The question in these countries I suppose is whether they are unnecessarily transforming themselves into dictatorships using the excuse of protecting the indigenous population. It would hardly be the first time a government did such a thing.


They are doing it only because that is what populists do when you let them do it, they extend their time and grip on the chair. When you concentrate power in the chair you also risk that power falling to the wrong hands, which it most certainly will if it's not already there.

The situation is clearly not good. Families and birth rates are collapsing, Western populations are being replaced (though not in the Visegrad countries!), postwar international law has collapsed, and the working class has been substantially imiserated (sp?).

To your specific issue of civic rights, these rights are in fact declining in many Western countries. Legally in many European countries, and functionally in the United States in that you can be deprived of your income for holding dissident opinions.


Civic rights decline when governments like the one in Poland remove civic rights from their people and others support that decline. All these things happen when people let them happen by providing tacit or explicit approval. And then it comes down to very simple things in our every day lives.

Does one support the idea of families and birth rates? Having children is far more productive than blaming homosexuality & immigrants for example.

Does one support the advancement of civic rights, then speak out against the Polish actions. Does one support the post-war international order? Then speak out against those states that undermine it.

As Orwell said:

Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.
#14825532
Well we know with whom the fake news has sided ^. That means the Polish government is doing the right thing. (no pun intended).

Brussels is throwing a shit fit over polish internal affairs because the Poles refuse to tow the line, but isn't throwing Italy a bone on the migrant disaster there, despite Brussels professing open borders and pro-migration policies-Italy has been left to go it alone and is threatening to dump 200,000 migrants into the EU soon as a result. Austria is squealing about that, having sent the army to its border to stop them crossing.

EU is tearing itself apart. Good. Once it became an instrument of neoliberal banksterism and fake news it became worthless.
#14825558
The judicial system should be independent from the government. Why? So the government is accountable. I do find it funny that people can't see this simple truth and somehow justify it by shouting out democracy without fully understanding what democracy actually is. I mean, what would YOU do if YOUR government started infringing YOUR rights because they had absolute power in court? Where would you go to receive your rights?

But none of this really matters anyway. Why? Because Poland signed up to be an EU member. They didn't have to, but wanted to. So the rules of membership should be applied to them once the pen hits the paper. As we are learning with Brexit, there is no cherry picking. There is much more to the EU than just handouts. It has modern standards that protect OUR (societies) interests. And what Poland wants to do is suppress these interests to gain greater (and unnecessary) autonomy.
#14825562
noemen wrote:Orwell said: Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.


Let me do that :D

Why a constitution and a constitutional court?

Because electoral democracies are inherently unstable. The rational decision for any elected leader/party is to abolish the democratic system, because that way the leader/the party can retain power forever. You need institutions to safeguard the system. A constitution that can only be changed by supermajority in parliament and a more or less independent court that watches over it serves that purpose. "Independent" in this case means the party/leader in power cannot easily change its composition, because appointment requires a supermajority in parliament or the judges are appointed for life which makes it difficult to replace them on a whim.

There are countries which do not have a constitutional court. The UK, to my knowledge. Note however that the UK has plurality voting (like all Anglo-Saxon countries), meaning elected representatives are more independent from their party than with proportional party-list representation. In particular radical parties tend to be organized relatively hierarchical (such as the PiS in Poland). Another example of a country without constitutional court is Switzerland. The safeguard here are the people themselves, because sovereignty lies with them.

I hope that was enlightening.
Last edited by Rugoz on 21 Jul 2017 09:03, edited 3 times in total.
#14825565
Judges appointing each other is hardly the gold standard in fairness and objectivity is it? How many working class judges are there? :lol: It is just a club of rich guys guys picking other rich guys for a nice cushy job of sending the poor to prison for stealing loves of bread to feed their starving kids while letting the rich get away with a fine for stealing pensions from tens of thousands of people. Personally I favour a bit more democracy being introduced to the selection rather than the current system of them existing as some kind of self selecting aristocracy above the people, the famous separation of powers (where all powers are kept separated from the toiling masses by any means necessary).
#14825570
Decky wrote:Personally I favour a bit more democracy being introduced to the selection rather than the current system of them existing as some kind of self selecting aristocracy above the people, the famous separation of powers (where all powers are kept separated from the toiling masses by any means necessary).


Congrats Decky for understanding nothing. :knife:

You act as if there's no conflict of interest between voters and representatives. The point of the constitutional court is to protect the former from the latter. Unfortunately liberal elites themselves propagate the idea that this conflict does not exist, which makes it easy for right-wingers to pretend to act democratically. After all they represent the will of the people in all matters if they have won the majority, right?
#14825572
Rugoz wrote:Congrats Decky for understanding nothing. :knife:

You act as if there's no conflict of interest between voters and representatives. The point of the constitutional court is to protect the former from the latter. Unfortunately liberal elites themselves propagate the idea that this conflict does not exist, which makes it easy for right-wingers to pretend to act democratically. After all they represent the will of the people in all matters if they have won the majority, right?


What an odd idea, so even if they enjoy popular support the right can never be acting democratically only pretending to be acting democratically?

It is almost as if you believe a government is only democratic if it proposes policies that you support and all other governments are only faking it.

Do you define a democratic government as, one that you like and a non democratic government as one that you dislike? A very American way of viewing the world.
#14825581
Decky wrote:What an odd idea, so even if they enjoy popular support the right can never be acting democratically only pretending to be acting democratically?

It is almost as if you believe a government is only democratic if it proposes policies that you support and all other governments are only faking it.

Do you define a democratic government as, one that you like and a non democratic government as one that you dislike? A very American way of viewing the world.


What are you talking about?

I already said one way to "safeguard" the system is the veto referendum (concerning laws) or the recall.

Decky wrote:A very American way of viewing the world.


An American view would be that the constitution guarantees individual rights that stand above majority rule.

A German view would be that the constitution protects the people from their own folly. :lol:
#14825588
Decky wrote:Judges appointing each other is hardly the gold standard in fairness and objectivity is it? How many working class judges are there? :lol: It is just a club of rich guys guys picking other rich guys for a nice cushy job of sending the poor to prison for stealing loves of bread to feed their starving kids while letting the rich get away with a fine for stealing pensions from tens of thousands of people. Personally I favour a bit more democracy being introduced to the selection rather than the current system of them existing as some kind of self selecting aristocracy above the people, the famous separation of powers (where all powers are kept separated from the toiling masses by any means necessary).


Thank you and others for expressing some of my views.

You can not understand 'division of power ' without understanding it's origin. Who's power is being divided?
#14825595
Theoretically or in practice?

Theoretically the state is having its power divided but that is rather pointless. The state has no wishes of its own, it is just a tool; what it does depends on who owns it. Weakening the states power to prevent abuse makes as much sense and blunting all axes to prevent axe murders.
#14825599
I have to say it's Angela Merkel's fault mostly. The goddess of pragmatism and compromises failed to show an example with Hungary, so the problem escalates now. I'm sure she was pleased with herself how well she was handling Orbán, what a surprise it must be that Poland, which is four times the size of Hungary, doesn't care about the liberal values of the EU now! :roll:

I agree with foxdemon about this. The ruling elite[…]

Of course things are changable. But at first, the[…]

EU-BREXIT

Well here is a solution : if the people of Gibral[…]

Will it matter? Ultimately I doubt much will ch[…]