Search

The author of the entry criticized Karol Nawrocki for selectively referencing the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and accused him and Bogucki of omitting provisions related to international law. He pointed to articles 87, 9, 90, and 91, which—he wrote—are significant for understanding the sources of law and Poland's obligations. The author argued that Article 87 defines the sources of law, not the institutions authorized to interpret it. He also noted that the opinions of the Venice Commission are not legally binding, whereas the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the rulings of the Court of Justice of the EU are subject to different principles arising from Poland's treaty obligations. He reminded that according to Article 126, paragraph 2, Nawrocki, while performing the duties of the President of the Republic of Poland, was to ensure compliance with the Constitution. He accused him of undermining the integrity of fulfilling this duty by omitting parts of its provisions. #KonstytucjaRP #Prawo #Polska (translated)

Adam Karpinski wrote that the head of the Pentagon, whom he referred to as a Trump official, mocked the US allies in Afghanistan, and Radosław Sikorski quickly responded, advising him to direct those mockeries straight to the families of the fallen Polish soldiers. He also asked if there were any reactions from Nawrocki, Przydacz, and Bogucki. https://t.co/oqdJDasoVv #Polska #Afganistan #Trump (translated)

The author r00t🇪🇺 accused Bogucki of selective representation of the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling from December 3, 2015, in case K 34/15. He pointed out that Article 194, paragraph 1 of the Constitution entrusts the Sejm with the election of judges of the Tribunal, while the obligation to take an oath before the President results from the law. He referred to points 8.5.1, 8.5.3, and 8.6 of the justification. As he wrote, the Tribunal considered the oath to be an element added by the legislator to the constitutional procedure, and its acceptance by the President was regarded as an obligation. He added that the Tribunal questioned the interpretation of provisions that would not foresee the immediate taking of an oath. The author assessed that the President does not approve the choice made by the Sejm and cannot, based on statutory competence, co-decide on the composition of the Tribunal. He accused Bogucki of omitting parts of the ruling and using it to provoke opposition to the government and to present its actions as an attack on the constitutional order. Referring to Karol Nawrocki, the author reminded that Article 126, paragraph 1 of the Constitution defines the President of the Republic of Poland as the highest representative of the state and the guarantor of continuity of power, while paragraph 3 indicates that he performs his tasks on the principles specified in the Constitution and laws. He wrote that using the authority of the Constitution to justify a political position does not correspond to those obligations. #Konstytucja #Prawo #Polityka (translated)

The author accused Bogucki of incorrectly asserting that in Poland no one can become a judge without taking an oath before the president. He wrote that he did not know whether it was Bogucki's interpretation or that of Karol Nawrocki, and he cited Article 194, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. According to the author, judges of the Constitutional Tribunal are chosen by the Sejm, and the president does not have constitutional powers to appoint or approve them. The author emphasized that the obligation to take an oath before the president arises from the law, not from the Constitution. He claimed that the president merely receives the oath, and the oath itself does not create the judge's mandate. He also referenced the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling in case K 34/15, which — as he wrote — clarified that the taking of the oath does not imply the president's involvement in shaping the Tribunal's composition. Finally, he criticized Bogucki for, in his opinion, presenting the Constitution according to the political needs of the President's Chancellery. #Konstytucja #TrybunałKonstytucyjny #Polska (translated)

Zbigniew Bogucki announced that the reaction of the President of the Republic of Poland will be decisive and symmetrical. He claimed that President Nawrocki is ready for various scenarios, including an attempt to forcibly enter the Constitutional Tribunal and remove Bogdan Święczkowski from it. Bogucki ruled out a compromise with the current authorities and questioned why it would be necessary to negotiate with individuals who, as he claimed, commit crimes. He also called for the presentation of documents confirming that Berek has the required experience and actually performed the work, rather than merely being listed as a legal advisor. As support for this doubt, he cited two opinions, including that of Prof. Piotrowski, and a statement by Prof. Grabowska on one of the television stations. He emphasized that this is the position of recognized constitutionalists, and not just his or President Nawrocki's, and stated that the ruling authorities do not have the required documents. #Polska #Prawo #TrybunałKonstytucyjny (translated)

Magda wrote that there was a division of duties at the Palace: Przydacz, who in her opinion did not stand out in appearance, insulted Tusk on X, while Bogucki said foolish things and recorded reels, making up for what he lacked in appearance. #polityka #media #informacje (translated)

The head of the KPRP, Zbigniew Bogucki, indicated that the lack of additional documentation confirming Berek's performance of the duties of legal advisor for ten years is the reason why the president is withholding acceptance of his oath. #TrybunałKonstytucyjny #KryzysPrawny #Sędziowie (translated)

The author of the post urged Bogucki, the head of the President's Chancellery, to refrain from publicly humiliating representatives of his own country. He wrote that Bogucki's subsequent posts and interviews, focused on Donald Tusk and the government, have ceased to resemble constructive political criticism and have begun to resemble a personal obsession. The author assessed that Bogucki's statements do not undermine the international position or reputation of the Prime Minister, but provide testimony of himself and the Chancellery he represents. He added that portraying Tusk as a fraud and a liar mocks Bogucki and his surroundings. #Polityka #DonaldTusk #KancelariaPrezydenta (translated)

The author criticized Szefernaker's post, stating that instead of calming emotions, it served political mobilization. He pointed out that Szefernaker began with the story of a voter who traveled half of Poland to cast his vote for him, and then — as the author put it — presented Donald Tusk as an unscrupulous salesman, Poland as a state of chaos and high prices, and suggested a political nature to the accusations and arrests. The author also noted the announcement to remove Tusk's government from power within a year. He emphasized that Szefernaker wrote as the head of the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland, while also reminding of his role in Karol Nawrocki's campaign, whom he referred to as a civic candidate. The author accused the Presidential Chancellery and politicians associated with Nawrocki of inconsistency: on one hand, they were supposed to call for an end to political war and calm the mood, while on the other hand — according to the author — they were stoking conflict, presenting government decisions as threats, and mobilizing voters against it. In this context, he recalled statements from Bogucki and Nawrocki about the need to ease tensions. The author noted that the efficiency of the state is not measured solely by the number of accusations or arrests, but added that it should not also depend on whether those in power are protected from responsibility. He assessed that merely labeling the accusations as political does not prove that they had such a nature and announced that he would remind of earlier statements every time the Presidential Chancellery calls for an end to the political conflict. #Polska #Polityka #Emocje (translated)

In connection with the situation that occurred today, which can be said to have its roots many months ago, the president has determined, due to the seriousness of this situation, that he will cancel his visit to the meeting of the presidents of the European Union countries, which will take place tomorrow and the day after in Slovenia – informed the head of the presidential office, Zbigniew Bogucki. #TrybunałKonstytucyjny #KarolNawrocki #DonaldTusk (translated)

The National Broadcasting Council demands explanations from Polish Television regarding the lack of coverage of the press conference by Zbigniew Bogucki, which fits into the broader context of criticism of how TVP reports on the president's activities. #TVP #KRRiT #ZbigniewBogucki (translated)

Marcin Matczak considered the president's attempt to control whether the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal elected by the Sejm met the requirements as usurpation. He argued that according to the principle of legality, the president would need a clear legal basis for such control, and — as he wrote — there was no such provision. Matczak criticized the hypothetical examples presented by Marcin Przydacz and Zbigniew Bogucki regarding the election of a horse, a monkey, or a person without Polish citizenship to the Tribunal. He described them as science fiction scenarios. He added that if the Sejm chose animals, it could invalidate their appointment with another resolution, just as — according to him — PiS did in 2015 to introduce substitutes into the Tribunal. He noted that in that case, people who had Polish citizenship were elected. In response to the arguments of Przydacz and Bogucki, Matczak presented his own ironic examples of possible presidential control: a test of knowledge about society and the Constitution, a physical fitness test, and a certificate from a parish priest about the candidate's impeccable character. He asked why the president should control one requirement and not the others. Matczak wrote that he considered the whole situation absurd. He assessed that caricatural legal arguments were being constructed so that the president — a potential defendant of the Tribunal — could decide who would judge him. He attributed such a position to Karol Nawrocki and his associates. #prawo #Polska #sędziowie (translated)

Dariusz Mazur accused President Nawrocki and Zbigniew Bogucki of scaring the Polish people. He wrote that the president demonstratively canceled his participation in a meeting with other EU state leaders, and Bogucki insulted Polish security service officers. He assessed that it was a party game that served no good purpose. Mazur stated that nothing wrong was happening in the Constitutional Tribunal, and the judges chosen by the Sejm to replace those whose terms had expired wanted to begin work in accordance with the Constitution. He wrote that Nawrocki accused Judge Berko of political involvement while simultaneously meeting in the Tribunal with Bogdan Święczkowski, whom he described as a friend of Zbigniew Ziobro and a former PiS candidate for the Sejm. He added that the presence of Stanisław Piotrowicz, a former prosecutor and PZPR activist, did not bother the president, who — according to Mazur — had ended up there directly from the parliamentary benches. Mazur wrote that the president did not have the authority under the current Constitution to control the selection of judges made by the Sejm. He also accused Bogucki of hypocrisy in his statements about the independence of the Tribunal and stated that his record from the time of PiS's rule was well known. The author referred to two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, which — as he wrote — assessed that the consequence of the reforms referred to as "good change" was the Tribunal's loss of characteristics of an independent and impartial court within the meaning of Article 6 of the ECHR. He added that the Tribunal ceased to be the guardian of the Constitution and became a tool of a particular political option, while Bogucki had no problem deceiving the Polish people. #polityka #Trybunał #Konstytucja (translated)

In the evening, the head of the President's Chancellery, Zbigniew Bogucki, announced that the president canceled the planned visit to Slovenia on Thursday and Friday due to the situation in the Constitutional Tribunal. #TrybunałKonstytucyjny #KarolNawrocki #MarcinMatczak (translated)

Monika_TeoriaZła assessed that canceling the visit to the international summit due to a local conflict was amateurish and harmed the image. She blamed Bogucki, Przydacz, Leśkiewicz, and Szefernakera for this decision. She accused their entourage of prioritizing party calculations over the national interest and the prestige of the office, and said that Nawrocki was pushed away from high diplomacy. She believed that these individuals should resign. #polityka #dyplomacja #wizerunek (translated)

President Karol Nawrocki, due to the situation in the Constitutional Tribunal, canceled the visit to Slovenia scheduled for Thursday and Friday, the head of the President's Chancellery, Zbigniew Bogucki, informed on Wednesday evening. #KarolNawrocki #TrybunałKonstytucyjny #PolskaPolitika (translated)