[RaccoonFace]

Quote:


Polish lawmakers in the lower house have passed a law that hands control of the country's Supreme Court to politicians. Critics have said the bill will kill judicial independence. It still has to pass the upper house.

Polish lawmakers in the lower house of parliament on Thursday voted through a controversial reform of the Supreme Court proposed by the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS).

The PiS-controlled lower house of parliament voted in favor 235 to 192 -- with 23 abstentions. It still needs to pass the upper house, which is also controlled by the PiS, and be signed by President Andrzej Duda. A Senate commission was due to open debate on the bill later Thursday, and was expected to approve it on Friday.

Duda, who is closely allied with the PiS, refused a meeting with European Council president Donald Tusk, who had expressed concern over the situation, he announced on Thursday.

Tusk released a statement after the vote again requesting a meeting with Duda. He said Poland risked being marginalized by the EU because its moves went against European values.

The bill has drawn condemnation from the European Union and led to street protests.

Protesters started kicking and hitting the metal barriers that separate them from the parliament grounds after the bill passed. Some carried banners urging Duda to veto the bill. Further demonstrations are expected on Thursday evening.

The new law grants the nation's president the power to influence the court's work and to appoint its judges. It also calls for the immediate dismissal of the court's current judges, except those chosen by the president.

"The adoption of this reform violates the principles of the rule of law because it subjects the judiciary to political power. This paves the way for a non-democratic system in Poland," political analyst Stanislaw Mocek of the Polish Academy of Sciences told news agency AFP.

"The situation is very serious and could get out of hand. We don't see a will for compromise on the part of PiS, and the opposition is too weak," he said.

EU may trigger Article 7

The EU had warned Poland that if it passed the laws, it could be sanctioned and have its voting rights suspended in the Council of Ministers, a top EU decision making body.

"Recent measures taken by the Polish authorities on the judicial system greatly amplify the threat to the rule of law in Poland," European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans said on Wednesday.

He said he could be close to triggering Article 7, a never-before-used sanction against EU members who violate fundamental rights.

Since being elected to power in 2015, the PiS party has sought to expand its influence over the courts and media, prompting the EU to launch a review of the rule of law in Poland last year.

Malgorzata Kidawa-Blonska, the former Chairman of the Sejm (lower house), condemned the vote on Twitter on Thursday. "Members of the PiS raised their hands to deprive citizens of the right to free courts," she wrote.

Wenzel Michalski‏, the German Director of Human Rights Watch, said the bill would kill judicial independence in Poland.

http://archive.is/gXZzx

[Foolsgo1d]

The EU is already pushing for article 7 to eviscerate Poland and Hungary for their stance on refugees and this is one of those items they dislike.

Message for Polish or FSU members here; do not trust Western Europe or the snake eyes they are viewing you with.

Message for Americans here: Watch Germany and France undermine your control over the continent with the blocs power and the new EU army it is developing.

Do not trust these people.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It looks like Poland is moving to curtail the ability of the EU to win rulings through crooked judges by offering them sweetheart positions behind a gavel in Brussels after they betray their country.

[LEMONed IScream]

We will soon have an "Eastern European Union" by the looks of it. A united block within NATO to shield them from Russia, in which Ukraine would probably be present, along with the Visegrad alliance and the Baltics! Sounds good to me!

[Paracelsus]

(07-20-2017 08:09 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  

We will soon have an "Eastern European Union" by the looks of it. A united block within NATO to shield them from Russia, in which Ukraine would probably be present, along with the Visegrad alliance and the Baltics! Sounds good to me!

The only question now is how many Prestige Points we need to re-establish the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marrying off Tiffany Trump is only going to get us an additional +200 on that score.

[Wreckingball]

i would like some more input on this topic.

It seems to me that its clearly anti constitutional and not the most democratic thing to do. Courts are a different power from Politics (even though previous judges where from Platforma).
People are protesting on the street and people think its going to be martial law (I do think that's a bit apocalyptic leftist terror tactic).

What exactly does this mean? Is the military with PiS?
In my opinion it has the necessary ingredients to create an autocratic government (even though i think it will not happen).

[redpillage]

(07-21-2017 06:35 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

i would like some more input on this topic.

It seems to me that its clearly anti constitutional and not the most democratic thing to do. Courts are a different power from Politics (even though previous judges where from Platforma).
People are protesting on the street and people think its going to be martial law (I do think that's a bit apocalyptic leftist terror tactic).

What exactly does this mean? Is the military with PiS?
In my opinion it has the necessary ingredients to create an autocratic government (even though i think it will not happen).

Absolutely is unconstitutional but it shows how the EU continues to undermine traditional Western democratic mechanisms and thus pushes member states to resort to extremes. A better solution would have been to pass an 'anti lobbying' law (which would have been much better perceived) that prevents retiring judges from receiving EU benefits of any kind and forbids them from joining any political organizations, become board members or 'consultants' of foreign corporations, participate in NGs, etc. Basically if you are a supreme court judge you are bound for life.

All this does is to create inner political tensions, which in some ways plays in the hands of the EU. At some point the Visegrád nations will have to make a decision, continue to be be the EU's bitch or stand up for yourself and draw a line. It would be easier if it would be consolidated action by several countries defining and defending a common interest. I know this is easier said than done.

The EU has become the cancer of Europe and it needs to be destroyed.

[Going strong]

Related to one of my past threads, thread-52983.html , and much respect to the Poles and Hungarians! They are (or should I say, were? hard to say with fast-evolving Macron) indeed the prime target of newly-elected leftist Macron, who spoke about them at length and with very menacing tones during the campaign.

[Paracelsus]

(07-21-2017 06:35 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

i would like some more input on this topic.

It seems to me that its clearly anti constitutional and not the most democratic thing to do. Courts are a different power from Politics (even though previous judges where from Platforma).

The classic role of a court is as the interpreter of the law. I also like Geoffrey Robertson's idea of a court: it's meant as a place where there is the precious possibility of beating the state at its own game, where the playing field is equal even if justice is not always assured. More practically, you cannot have a functional society, from the most libertarian to the most autocratic, without the rule of law. No government that holds or pretends to Western traditionalist values should tamper with a court without expecting a backlash or protesting from its citizenry, or at least you would hope for such protesting or backlash.

There is, however, another aspect to this. At the end of the day, even in Western systems, a court is not meant to be the final arbiter of law. That role is retained by the legislature, the Parliament, the Diet, the House, whatever name you call it by. And regardless of the politics, it is ultimately the Parliament of Poland, its people, who have chosen this course. It has not been the strongarming of the President or a military takeover.

There is also this: by its very nature, a court must be patriotic, in administering justice. What is patriotic in the circumstances is going to differ from case to case; in the US it is as often patriotism to uphold the rights of individual men against the will of the government as it is to authorise government action, and that heavy task of deciding which is the course of patriotism, of justice, is why judges exist.

But in either case if a court proposes to enforce or interpret laws whose origins lie wholly beyond its nation's borders, imposed against the will of the populace, that court is no longer a court; it is instead an instrument of outside tyranny, no different in character to aliens and strangers sitting in a country's Parliament. In Australia we forbid our members of Parliament from holding dual citizenship; we have recently (and happily) thrown out two MPs for that very reason. Idiots have said this law is "outdated"; yes, outdated in the way a jury is outdated. The purpose of that law is simple: no sane democracy countenances an executive, a legislature, or a judiciary with a divided allegiance. Choose one country, or the other, and choose well, but choose irrevocably.

Any court that would rule in favour of the interests of a foreign power over the interests of its own citizens surely has divided allegiances. And that is precisely the problem with Poland's courts: the foreign power at hand being the EU, a body that Poland does not want full union with, a body that Poland's people have decided should have less influence in Poland.

Poland's had a lot of experience with the influence of foreign powers in its affairs over the centuries. Going by people like James Michener and Russelll Davies, the most common theme in its cycle of rising into hope and falling into despair is because Germany, Russia, and other assorted nations over the centuries constantly intervene in its politics to keep it weak and divided; west and east, it has always been riven by the interests of ethnic Germans and ethnic Russians jockeying for influence over it.

In particular it also knows the danger of unilateral vetoes over its population's will. Poland had one of the first democracies in the world; from roughly the late medieval period, while the English barons were still at war with each other over the succession, the Poles had a legislature in which if one man objected to a measure proposed, that proposal failed. This was principled, and romantic, and foolish, and Poland was washed over again and again over time because of such ideas. I would suspect those memories loom large in this decision.

I shudder at the thought of a court's independence being eroded. But our greatest historical democracies had contingencies for situations of extraordinary need or extraordinary emergency: the word dictator is from the Latin and was the office of a single man appointed by Rome's legislature when the need was greatest. The last such man was named Julius Caesar, who was assassinated, certainly, but in retrospect was one of Rome's greatest leaders. Even if the office eventually destroyed their democracy, the Romans were prosaic enough to recognise that democracy, even limited democracy, was not a panacea for all societal ills and sometimes had to be varied for the sake of the citizenry.

[Samseau]

The judiciary is the most flawed part of all modern democracies. There are no easy solutions to the fair application of laws. Judges have committed crimes for as long as history has recorded them, and no one has ever devised a system that carefully checks the judicial power. Either they have too much, or too little to be significant.

In America we definitely lean towards too much power for the courts, and it creates horrible dysfunction. At the same time, our courts prevent a lot of tyranny. It's a double edged sword and I think the problem to the court systems should be address with modern internet technology now that instant communication is a thing. Faster and more transparent court cases could in theory eliminate tons of judicial abuse while allowing ordinary people to keep track of cases and catch abusive judges.

But to give everyone an idea of how difficult the problem of courts are, here is Brutus from the anti-Federalist papers, presumed to be Robert Yates (NY judge), speaking at length about the flawed nature of our courts: http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm

Quote:

This government is a complete system, not only for making, but for executing laws. And the courts of law, which will be constituted by it, are not only to decide upon the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, but by officers subordinate to them to execute all their decisions. The real effect of this system of government, will therefore be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power. It is, moreover, of great importance, to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those who are to be vested with it, are to be placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.

The only causes for which they can be displaced, is, conviction of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.

Quote:

They are authorised to determine all questions that may arise upon the meaning of the constitution in law. This article vests the courts with authority to give the constitution a legal construction, or to explain it according to the rules laid down for construing a law. — These rules give a certain degree of latitude of explanation. According to this mode of construction, the courts are to give such meaning to the constitution as comports best with the common, and generally received acceptation of the words in which it is expressed, regarding their ordinary and popular use, rather than their grammatical propriety. Where words are dubious, they will be explained by the context. The end of the clause will be attended to, and the words will be understood, as having a view to it; and the words will not be so understood as to bear no meaning or a very absurd one.

Quote:

They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other.

Quote:

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

Quote:

Not only will the constitution justify the courts in inclining to this mode of explaining it, but they will be interested in using this latitude of interpretation. Every body of men invested with office are tenacious of power; they feel interested, and hence it has become a kind of maxim, to hand down their offices, with all its rights and privileges, unimpared to their successors; the same principle will influence them to extend their power, and increase their rights; this of itself will operate strongly upon the courts to give such a meaning to the constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their own authority. Every extension of the power of the general legislature, as well as of the judicial powers, will increase the powers of the courts; and the dignity and importance of the judges, will be in proportion to the extent and magnitude of the powers they exercise. I add, it is highly probable the emolument of the judges will be increased, with the increase of the business they will have to transact and its importance. From these considerations the judges will be interested to extend the powers of the courts, and to construe the constitution as much as possible, in such a way as to favour it; and that they will do it, appears probable.

Quote:

When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any control?

This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please.

Can anyone rebut the above? What check is there on abusive judges? Everything Brutus said has become our nightmare and reality. The courts have become weaponized by the Democrats, or any other power hungry madmen, to extend tyranny over their subjects and increase the power and wealth of the government. The 9th Circuit is the most egregious example, but the entire system is fundamentally broken and is only carried on by the will of good men. And overall, it's been a slow degradation over the past few centuries that have resulted in few rights for husbands and fathers. A system that taxes the productive and rewards the unproductive. A literal system of casting pearls before swine. Not just in America, but all across the West.

Brutus continues in his next essay:

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus12.htm

Quote:

Perhaps the judicial power will not be able, by direct and positive decrees, ever to direct the legislature, because it is not easy to conceive how a question can be brought before them in a course of legal discussion, in which they can give a decision, declaring, that the legislature have certain powers which they have not exercised, and which, in consequence of the determination of the judges, they will be bound to exercise. But it is easy to see, that in their adjudications they may establish certain principles, which being received by the legislature, will enlarge the sphere of their power beyond all bounds.

Quote:

From these observations it appears, that the judgment of the judicial, on the constitution, will become the rule to guide the legislature in their construction of their powers.

What the principles are, which the courts will adopt, it is impossible for us to say; but taking up the powers as I have explained them in my last number, which they will possess under this clause, it is not difficult to see, that they may, and probably will, be very liberal ones.

In the criticisms of the court, one can see how Brutus predicted the Civil War as well as loss of personal freedoms: http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus13.htm

Quote:

Execution may be levied on any property of the state, either real or personal. The treasury may be seized by the officers of the general government, or any lands the property of the state, may be made subject to seizure and sale to satisfy any judgment against it. Whether the estate of any individual citizen may not be made answerable for the discharge of judgments against the state, may be worth consideration. In some corporations this is the case.

If the power of the judicial under this clause will extend to the cases above stated, it will, if executed, produce the utmost confusion, and in its progress, will crush the states beneath its weight. And if it does not extend to these cases, I confess myself utterly at a loss to give it any meaning. For if the citizen of one state, possessed of a written obligation, given in pursuance of a solemn act of the legislature, acknowledging a debt due to the bearer, and promising to pay it, cannot recover in the supreme court, I can conceive of no case in which they can recover. And it appears to me ridiculous to provide for obtaining judgment against a state, without giving the means of levying execution.

So back to Poland, and this topic; Poland is totally justified in their current legislature to reign in the courts, as it's a flawed system. But, their law doesn't really address the fundamental problems of the court, and the current law in the OP is merely a band-aid solution.

[stugatz]

Good to see that Eastern Europe is fighting, and is at least a place to run to if things get past the point of saving. Living under the USSR redpilled them to the point where they just look past propaganda and don't care about repercussions.

[Hypno]

Poland is in a very difficult place politically and geographically.

Historically, they were invaded on all sides and ceased to exist for 100 years. They were brutalized by the Germans and Russians in WWII, and to this day the Germans look at them like we do Mexico.

Its in their interest economically to trade with Russia and the EU, and from a trade perspective the EU has been good to them and many factories were established in Poland.

Politically, they don't like what is going on with the EU and have been aligned with the U.S. The U.S. has had this continual aggressive stance towards Russia, including but not limited to sanctions. So they are very similar to Hungary in some regards, but Hungary has little trade with Russia and is less threatened militarily/geographically by Russia. Poland is like the center of the chess board, even more so than Ukraine.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Leonard posted it in the Migrant Thread:





Personally I don't think it is a big deal. While in theory there should be separation of the judiciary and the legislative branch, the reality is that the globalists have been in control of the money first and the judiciary branch in Poland has been obviously under their influence even after the fall of communism.

In the US the president appoints supreme court judges.

If the laws are upheld then the next party could exchange some judges as well if they reach the age limit.

The PIS party is led by a lawyer and he focuses strongly towards those issues. Possibly that they are old communists and he wants them gone.

I personally don't think it is worth the trouble. There is now tremendous backlash and this contrary to the migrant stance is not as widely supported by the people because it is mostly technical.

Either way - the globalists have activated all their NGOs and newspapers and are making this out to be some kind of Stalinist takeover while in reality is no big deal.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The ultimate check on judicial tyranny is the same ultimate check on all tyranny.

Extrajudicial bloodshed, shorthand for the watering of the tree of liberty.

Poland has apparently opted to broom the corrupt bastards out the door rather than wait for torches and pitchforks to come back into vogue. Traditional separation of the powers is nice, but there are times when you have to choose survival first.

[Hypno]

The U.S. on paper has separation of powers but in reality its less than meets the eye.

Currently there are 9 justices that comprise the U.S. Supreme Court. But that number is not carved in stone. FDR, during the Great Depression, threatened to pack the court with his appointees (e.g. increase size to 20) to get his New Deal programs passed - thinks like social security and the WPA. Congress got the hint and approved his programs, as did the Court, without a need to actually pack the court with his appointees. So while the court appears independent its independence is less than it seems.

[Vicious]

The litmus test for this move is simple. Would you still support it if carried out by a left government? Good heavens no.

This is a power grab and a step away from democracy. Trying to make it about the EU is missing the point entirely.

[Leonard D Neubache]

What kind of litmus test is that?

"Nah, just give our nation to the EU via the crooked post-soviet communist judges. Flooding our lands with savages and losing all national sovereignty to Brussels is a small price to pay for maintaining the right to preen about the separation of the powers."

Yeah, no thanks. It's just a little bit late for that kind of mentality.

[Vicious]

(07-23-2017 11:17 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

What kind of litmus test is that?

"Nah, just give our nation to the EU via the crooked post-soviet communist judges. Flooding our lands with savages and losing all national sovereignty to Brussels is a small price to pay for maintaining the right to preen about the separation of the powers."

Yeah, no thanks. It's just a little bit late for that kind of mentality.

It wouldn't be a good litmus test if anything of what you describe has actually happened in Poland.

Do try to keep the discussion free from 4chan level disinformation.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-23-2017 12:13 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(07-23-2017 11:17 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

What kind of litmus test is that?

"Nah, just give our nation to the EU via the crooked post-soviet communist judges. Flooding our lands with savages and losing all national sovereignty to Brussels is a small price to pay for maintaining the right to preen about the separation of the powers."

Yeah, no thanks. It's just a little bit late for that kind of mentality.

It wouldn't be a good litmus test if anything of what you describe has actually happened in Poland.

Do try to keep the discussion free from 4chan level disinformation.

Actually the Polish government amended the constitution early on.

But do you know what was anti-constitutional?

Merkel:
+ opening the borders to the entirety of Europe without any checks and balances - all against the constitution and even the EU constitution
+ now recently enacted hate-speech laws that let a new STASI send you state-financed and created trojans who spy on you
+ severe repercussions for anyone even posting anything negative about the blessed enrichers - they created now laws to take away your driving license and fine you thousands of Euros for any comment you make against the enriching new Germans - even if true - also you must never criticize Islam even if you just quote the Quran

Germany is essentially becoming a new STASI and forcing all European countries into it - constitution does not even matter one bit to that bitch and the globalists.

[Foolsgo1d]

(07-23-2017 11:10 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

The litmus test for this move is simple. Would you still support it if carried out by a left government? Good heavens no.

This is a power grab and a step away from democracy. Trying to make it about the EU is missing the point entirely.

Europe passed the litmus test of rapid mass immigration from outside the EU. The test was; Can we flood Europe at a steady pace of 1+ million people a year?

Poland and Hungary are opposed so they failed the litmus test and will be punished.

[Paracelsus]

(07-23-2017 11:10 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

The litmus test for this move is simple. Would you still support it if carried out by a left government? Good heavens no.

This is a power grab and a step away from democracy. Trying to make it about the EU is missing the point entirely.

The EU is the leftist government trying to do this -- and it's succeeded in any number of countries across the EU, which is rather why Brexit happened and why Poland is resisting, Warsaw Ghetto style.

Jesus Christ, guys, the US was founded on the very idea of strong local governments and a weak Federal government, does this not make sense?

[Leonard D Neubache]

Keep in mind that Vicious is the "nussink has changed in Austria" guy.

The idea that the Right has to play with its hands tied "for its own good" against a Left that breaks every rule in the book is nonsense.

It would be like being ambushed by two men with knives and being chastised for not fighting them under Marquess of Queensbery rules.

Utter nonsense.

[Hypno]

This is one of many rifts between EE and the EU. Poland, Czech, Hungary in particular have set courses that are not aligned with the EU. When the EU was founded, the threat of invasion from Russia was a recent memory and joining the EU made sense for these countries. A generation later, it makes much less sense. Some sort of Central European federation instead of the EU makes a lot more sense for them, but of course the EU would never want to give up that much power.

[LEMONed IScream]

Does anyone have a particular reading of this recent meeting with the V4 group with Israel? I find this highly suspicious and I doubt Israel can be trusted. They are railing against Soros too but for some reason it sounds like a "Heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

[Matt Forney]

Hungary already did a similar purge of its communist-run judicial branch several years ago.

People don't realize that communists are still swarming throughout the governments of eastern Europe. There was no "decommunization" after the Cold War ended, like how there was a "denazification" of Germany after World War II. In most cases, the communists were allowed to keep serving in politics: they just rebranded as "social democrats," "democratic socialists," "greens," or "liberals." In some cases, ex-communist parties are still running and winning seats in democratic elections, such as Hungary's MSZP and Germany's Die Linke, both directly descended from communist parties that ruled during the Cold War.

And all those "ex-"communists are shills for the E.U. and globalism. MSZP in Hungary was in the process of selling off the country's infrastructure to foreign investors when Viktor Orbán's party bitchslapped them in the 2010 elections. Despite all the "mass protests" that followed Orbán's reforms (rewriting the constitution to ban gay marriage and the euro, the judicial purge etc.), his party Fidesz won reelection in 2014 with a bigger majority. George Soros doesn't even bother funding mass protests in Budapest anymore because there's no way to dislodge Orbán or get him to back down, short of a foreign invasion.

Poland and Hungary are doing what should have been done nearly thirty years ago: kicking the communists out of power. I'd personally like to see them face the firing squad or the noose in Nuremberg-style trials, but I'll settle for seeing them defrocked and sent home.

And as long as the opposition parties in each country are advocating for bringing in Muslim rapefugees and giving the E.U. more power, neither Fidesz nor PiS will have to worry about losing an election.