Constitutional Court in the heat of the dispute. Bogacki responds to Zurk

dzienniknarodowy.pl 1 month ago
Zdjęcie: Trybunał Konstytucyjny w ogniu sporu. Bogucki odpowiada Żurkowi


Zbigniew Bogucki replied sharply to Waldemar Żurk after the Minister of Justice's words about the actions of Karol Nawrocki towards the judges of the Constitutional Court. The dispute does not only concern individuals. This is another test to see if the ruling state recognizes the boundaries of power while on the another side stands the office of President.

Sharp words from the Palace

President Zbigniew Bogucki, head of the Chancellery of President, referred to Waldemar Żurek's statement, who accused Karol Nawrock of breaking the law on the Constitutional Court judges. As Wprost reports, Żurek had earlier said on TVP Info that the president had broken the law by analyzing the résumés of the judges of the TK and will answer for it. Bogucki replied that specified declarations by the minister were either ridiculous or tragic.

This is not just a substance of exchanging grievances between politicians. It's about the state model. The Minister of Justice uses the language of settlement to the President, and the Palace responds that the government is trying to force political force to settle a systemic dispute. This is simply a dispute over power, procedures and limits of force on the head of state.

Constitutional Court as a field of emphasis

By Constitution of the Republic of Poland, Article 194, the Constitutional Court consists of 15 judges elected individually by the Sejm for 9 years. However, the political dispute takes place around the next stage: the vows and the function of the President. The Act on the position of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal states that the individual elected as a justice makes a vow to the president of the Republic of Poland.

Bogacki convinces that Nawrocki did not announce a refusal to take a vow from 4 people. According to him, the president considered the procedure to be correct and directed the substance towards the way of competence. There's a difference. What is different is the political blockade, and what is different is the dispute over whether the procedure was carried out correctly.

Government or Government

The most dangerous thing about this case is that the ruling camp is increasingly treating its own explanation of the law as a sentence. First comes the political thesis, then comes the threat of responsibility, and then leaves area for institutions. This is not how the state acts in a peaceful and constitutional way.

The National diary repeatedly described how Constitutional Court becomes the central point of state disputes. Regardless of who sits in government, the regulation should be simple: executive power cannot intimidate another state authorities with prosecutorial rhetoric erstwhile itself is simply a organization to political conflict.

Bogacki strikes political rhythm

Bogucki's speech was sharp, but politically clear. The Palace wants to show that it will not back distant from the language of force from the Minister of Justice. For the electorate the right is an crucial signal, due to the fact that the dispute over the TK has for years been presented by the liberal centre as a pretext to take over the institution and clear them according to the current majority.

Bogacki is acting as the defence of the President's line. In another text we wrote about him on the occasion Year of president Karol Nawrocki. Now the same mechanics returns in the case of TK: The palace focuses on activity, hard argument and refusal to admit that the government has a monopoly on interpreting constitutionality.

Rate for the State

Poles do not request another war for mines and conferences. They request a country where the law is not a baton in the hands of the current majority. If the Minister of Justice announces the President's responsibility, he must have stronger grounds than political anger and tv declaration.

The stakes are specific: the stableness of the office of President, the seriousness of the Constitutional Court and the assurance of the citizen that the constitution does not change the meaning depending on who has the majority in the Sejm. The Polish right hand should talk hard in this matter. The State cannot be rebuilt under 1 organization interpretation.

Source: Straight, One, ISAP Sejm.

Read Entire Article