Law BREAKING: Poland's sweeping purge of Supreme Court through "Constitutional Tribunal"

HockeyBjj said:
Ah judge packing. I fear similar strategies will be used in for US to gain a political control over our Supreme Court. Wasn’t it FDR that pulled some shady stuff to get a few of his own judges added because they wouldn’t approve his new deal?
Click to expand...

Yep. And both Democrats and Republicans called him out on it as a blatant power grab, as thats what it is full stop.
 
Fuck yeah Poland.

God Bless you.
 
I thought the country was moving in this direction without this move; if so then I have to denounce it.

I am for the limits on the judiciary, but it should come with a grandfather clause.
Of course the judiciary would never go for it and rule it unconstitutional no matter what.

(I know nothing about Poland so my opinion is rather meaningless.)
 
The EU is run by unelected bureaucrats who try to dictate to member states, but they want to bitch about authoritarianism in Poland. Right.
 
It’s not that unusual to set age limits on judges. Although 65 seems a little young. This seems to have more to do with the fact that the EU and their media minions dislike Poland’s shift to the right and their commitment to borders and sovereignty and less to do with compulsory retirement.
 
Arkain2K said:
Click to expand...


Children of the Corn bitches!!!
maxresdefault.jpg
 
Bargey said:
It’s not that unusual to set age limits on judges. Although 65 seems a little young. This seems to have more to do with the fact that the EU and their media minions dislike Poland’s shift to the right and their commitment to borders and sovereignty and less to do with compulsory retirement.
Click to expand...

No, this have everything to do with the Executive branch's power grab.

They couldn't get 2/3 of Parliament to do what they want, so they used the "Constitutional Tribunal" to pass these laws themselves through unconstitutional means.

It's a slightly different variety of the same stunt Maduro pulled in Venezuela.

From the OP, I don't know how that could be any clearer:

Lacking the two-thirds majority needed in Parliament to change the Constitution, the party instead took control of the tribunal. After that, the tribunal approved laws, like those restructuring the courts, that critics have called unconstitutional.

The party then gave the Minister of Justice the role of prosecutor general, which had previously been independent, and it took over the National Council of the Judiciary, which is responsible for appointing judges
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not in that fashion, but I've said for a couple decades that we should put a limit on ours in the US. Lifetime appointments were to keep anyone from being corrupted or swayed, but justices didn't live this long back then. It should be lifetime/or some age, I don't pretend to know what. Maybe 75? You start to lose touch a bit. It's inevitable for most. By 78 or 80 for sure. Enjoy retirement, current POTUS replaces. Everyone would know going in if it started in say 5 years after the next election, whatever. There is no need for 85, even 90+ year-old justices on the bench. They served their time.

As for Poland, I know they are saying no refugees and I support them if that is what they voted for.
 
Poland want every benefit from the EU but dont want to share any of the burdens. They are leeching the EU and the EU would be better off without these eastern European countries imo.
 
PHATV said:
Not in that fashion, but I've said for a couple decades that we should put a limit on ours in the US. Lifetime appointments were to keep anyone from being corrupted or swayed, but justices didn't live this long back then. It should be lifetime/or some age, I don't pretend to know what. Maybe 75? You start to lose touch a bit. It's inevitable for most. By 78 or 80 for sure. Enjoy retirement, current POTUS replaces. Everyone would know going in if it started in say 5 years after the next election, whatever. There is no need for 85, even 90+ year-old justices on the bench. They served their time.
Click to expand...
John Marshall, one of the most influential justices in US history, served until he died at the age of 79.

Age limits serve to encourage increasingly young and inexperienced appointments and encourage gamesmanship. (Something that is already a problem). Implementing them to boot specific justices is just a cynical ploy for political advantage, and shouldn't be supported. If lengthy, unpredictable tenures are actually the concern, make it a 30 year unrenewable term, with previous appointments grandfathered in.
 
Quipling said:
John Marshall, one of the most influential justices in US history, served until he died at the age of 79.

Age limits serve to encourage increasingly young and inexperienced appointments and encourage gamesmanship. (Something that is already a problem). Implementing them to boot specific justices is just a cynical ploy for political advantage, and shouldn't be supported. If lengthy, unpredictable tenures are actually the concern, make it a 30 year unrenewable term, with previous appointments grandfathered in.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea, either. I'm just saying a fair amount of people begin to "fade" in their 70s, and frankly, most do by 80. At least a bit. I know several personally who were lucid until 85 or 90, but they were the exception.
 
Gervais said:
Poland want every benefit from the EU but dont want to share any of the burdens. They are leeching the EU and the EU would be better off without these eastern European countries imo.
Click to expand...

The whole point of fast tracking eu membership for Eastern European nations was to hinder Russian overreach and influence. Turning their backs on eastern nations now would be a massive fuck up.

But you’re right about Poland wanting to have their cake and eat it. If they want to flout their responsibilities they should hand back the billions the EU has gifted them over the past few years.
 
Bargey said:
It’s not that unusual to set age limits on judges. Although 65 seems a little young. This seems to have more to do with the fact that the EU and their media minions dislike Poland’s shift to the right and their commitment to borders and sovereignty and less to do with compulsory retirement.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's hilarious and obvious when they set an age limit of 65 (the exact age of the head judge) and replace her with a guy who is 66 because you put in a provision that the President alone can give and age waiver lol.
 
WhitebeltXL said:
The whole point of fast tracking eu membership for Eastern European nations was to hinder Russian overreach and influence. Turning their backs on eastern nations now would be a massive fuck up.

But you’re right about Poland wanting to have their cake and eat it. If they want to flout their responsibilities they should hand back the billions the EU has gifted them over the past few years.
Click to expand...
Atleast threaten them that they need to play ball with EU. Current rightwing government used the EU to scare people and grab power about muslim immigration. They keep leaking anti EU news everyday. Fair enough.....get out of the EU. I am sure being russias bitch will be much better for them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,917
Messages
55,455,087
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top