The author of the entry wrote that for years the competencies of medical caregivers have been expanded, they were encouraged to gain qualifications, and were included in medical teams. He claimed that currently in various hospitals they are losing their jobs or are gradually being sidelined from their duties. According to him, 40 positions were at risk in Warsaw, and in Pionki, termination notices were given. #zdrowie #medycyna #praca #PL (translated)
Lawyers for Poland wrote that Maciej Berek announced the intention to hold a General Assembly of the Constitutional Tribunal without being convened by President Bogdan Święczkowski. According to the authors, he did not specify the legal basis or procedure for such action and also mentioned the possibility of involving the police. Lawyers for Poland described this as another stage of the coup against the constitutional order of the state and stated that the statutory competencies of the bodies cannot be taken over by political decision. #ZamachStanu #Konstytucja #Prawo (translated)
Jarosław Królewski wrote that he saw no need for a detailed analysis of Michał S.'s decision, whose experience in football he rated as top-class. He noted that in football many complex processes and circumstances are at play that cannot always be publicly explained, and difficult decisions may be necessary. Referring to the recent change of coach at Wisła Kraków, Królewski stated that in large clubs no position is guaranteed, and changes can happen for various reasons. According to him, decisions about staff are influenced not only by results but also by context, direction of development, quality of work, implementation of strategy, as well as trust and collaboration within the organization. He added that a coach could lose their job after ten consecutive wins or remain in position after twenty losses. Królewski argued that clubs should rely on processes, data, technology, and decision automation, as well as build lasting institutional competencies instead of depending on individual persons. Such a model would allow preserving the values and operation of the club despite changes in the positions of president, sports director, or coach. He also emphasized the importance of passion, energy, mutual trust, and joy from working together. Finally, he wrote vulgarly that his leg hurt a lot and added that he increasingly appreciated players returning to play after tearing their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). #PiłkaNożna #WisłaKraków #ZarządzanieSportem (translated)
Piotr Kusznieruk wrote that the obligation to adhere to binding international law does not mean the possibility of creating new powers for state authorities based on opinions from international institutions. He pointed out that Article 9 of the Constitution mandates compliance with such law, while Articles 87 and 91 specify the sources of universally applicable law and the status of ratified international agreements. He highlighted that the Venice Commission is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, and its opinions are neither treaties, judicial decisions, nor an independent source of state powers. Kusznieruk emphasized that binding rulings from international courts have a different status than non-binding opinions from advisory bodies. He also questioned whether international obligations in themselves authorize the Speaker of the Sejm to replace the President in the procedure for the oath of judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and demanded the identification of a provision that would establish such a competence. He added that referring to common values of legal orders does not provide a legal basis for granting powers, and Article 7 of the Constitution still applies. In his view, the argumentation did not clarify on what basis the Speaker of the Sejm could replace the President of Poland. He stressed that the competence must exist before the authority can exercise it, and the Constitution defines the limits of power. #prawo #Konstytucja #międzynarodowe (translated)
The author of the entry #Nawrocki2025 wrote that any changes to the rules should be introduced with the utmost caution a year before the elections. He pointed out that the Electoral Code, the powers of the National Electoral Commission, and blocking content on the internet can influence public debate, and the president should ensure fair rules. https://t.co/zvu8nLrP5h #wybory #demokracja #Polska (translated)
The author of the entry questioned Bogucki's reasoning regarding the refusal of the president to take the oath and the actions of the management of the Constitutional Tribunal's Chancellery. He indicated that it concerns separate legal issues related to different entities and their competencies. He referred to Article 194 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on the Status of Judges of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as to the judgment of the Tribunal in case K 34/15. As he wrote, the Tribunal recognized in it that taking the oath from a properly elected judge is the president's obligation. He added that even assuming that the oath taken in the Sejm was ineffective, it would not automatically exclude the legal assessment of Nawrocki's previous inaction. The author stated that there is no logical contradiction here and accused Bogucki of reducing two separate issues to a single political slogan. #prawo #konstytucja #Polska (translated)
The author of the entry accused Bogucki of presenting a selective interpretation of the Polish Constitution, omitting provisions regarding Poland's obligation to respect binding international law. He pointed to articles 9, 87, 90, and 91, which—he wrote—relate, among other things, to ratified international agreements, the transfer of certain competencies to international organizations, and the place of international law in the Polish legal order. The author assessed that the lack of mention of tribunals and commissions in articles 8 and 87 does not undermine the competencies of these institutions, as they arise from relevant international agreements. He added that the supremacy of the Constitution in the domestic legal order does not mean that Poland can ignore its commitments or rulings issued within recognized jurisdiction. He addressed Bogucki as the head of Nawrocki's Chancellery and a lawyer, accusing him of presenting the content of the fundamental law to citizens in an unreliable manner. He emphasized that the Constitution is not limited to article 8 and should not be interpreted according to political expectations. #Konstytucja #Prawo #Polska (translated)
Magda wrote that Nawrocki's repeated speaking about himself in the third person was not accidental, but constituted — in her opinion — a language of power. She argued that such a way of communication was meant to replace a person whose decisions could be questioned with the office of the president, whose decisions were supposed to sound like judgments. She added that first the importance of the office is emphasized, and later an attempt is made to expand its competences. #polityka #władza #debata (translated)
The author of the entry assessed that Nawrocki was not a "guardian of the Constitution" and accused him of attempting to ascribe to himself competencies that, according to the author, the fundamental law did not grant him. He wrote that merely invoking the Constitution during conferences and political disputes did not mean defending it, and it should also be respected when its provisions were politically inconvenient. He added that Nawrocki was not a ruler, and the Constitution should not be treated as a private regulation of his power. He concluded his assessment with a critical comment. #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)
Donald Tusk criticized President Karol Nawrocki for his opposition to the nomination of ambassadors, emphasizing that both the president and the minister of foreign affairs must adhere to the constitution, which clearly defines the competencies in this matter. #Polityka #Ambasadorzy #Rząd (translated)
The author criticized Dubyna's post, accusing him of misrepresenting the division of powers, the competences of the Council of Ministers, the rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal, and the concept of a coup d'état. He wrote that the appointed team analyzing the systemic effects of the court and tribunal rulings did not seize judicial power and had no authority to overturn judgments, change decision-making panels, or issue orders to judges. The author stated that Dubyna referred to Article 190 of the Constitution while omitting the difference between the finality of Constitutional Tribunal rulings and the analysis of their legal effects. He also accused him of failing to take into account the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Xero Flor v. Poland and the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-448/23, which — as he wrote — concerned fundamental irregularities in the functioning of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. The author considered the designation of the appointment of the government analytical team as a coup d'état to be a manifestation of a misunderstanding of the principles of state functioning. He also criticized the comparison of the situation to a totalitarian system, stating that it was historically unfounded and offensive to those repressed by the communist state. He added that the use of capital letters and exclamation marks did not lend any legal or intellectual value to the statements. #prawo #konstytucja #Polska (translated)
Marcin Matczak requested an indication of the provision that would define the competence of the President of the Republic of Poland to examine the actual and legal situation of a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal elected by the Sejm, including the entity, subject, and procedure of such control. He asserted that such a provision does not exist, and therefore the president does not have such competence. He added that the thought experiments of his interlocutor did not, in his opinion, change the fact that the president was claiming rights that the law did not grant him, and his interlocutor was assisting him in this. #Prawo #Prezydent #TK (translated)
Aneesh Raman, former director of LinkedIn, emphasizes in an interview that no occupations are completely immune to artificial intelligence, and the key to achieving success in the changing job market is predicting and adapting to new skills. #sztucznainteligencja #przemiana #kompetencje (translated)
Roman Giertych criticized Karol Nawrocki for announcing that Maciej Berek is not a judge. He believed that such a position showed how Nawrocki and his surroundings understood presidential powers: as the right to ultimately approve individuals appointed to positions or taking an oath. Giertych assessed that the consolidation of such an interpretation could lead to an actual dictatorship or absolute monarchy. He argued that the president could then refuse to sign a law despite a veto override or appoint a prime minister chosen by the Sejm. He reminded that according to the Constitution, the president must sign the law within 7 days of the veto override, and Article 154 provides for the appointment of a prime minister elected by the Sejm and ministers at his request. He also pointed out that a two-thirds majority is needed for impeachment. As a hypothetical example, he cited a situation in which, after the victory of the Civic Coalition and its majority, Mateusz Morawiecki would become prime minister, and Nawrocki would later refuse to appoint Donald Tusk chosen by the Sejm. Giertych also claimed that according to such an interpretation, judges, officers, generals, and ambassadors could not be appointed or professorships, citizenship, or honors granted without the president's consent. He defined the dispute surrounding the Constitutional Tribunal as a conflict over whether after the 2027 elections the government will designate the Sejm or Nawrocki. He warned the president that the interpretation he was pushing would mean changing the Constitution without following proper procedures and could lead to a coup against the Constitutional Tribunal and create grounds for undermining the government. He added that who will govern after 2027 will be decided by Poles in the general elections in the fall of next year. According to Giertych, Nawrocki's stance could exacerbate social relations and even lead to violence, for which the president would bear responsibility. #Polska #Konstytucja #Demokracja (translated)
Oskar Kida wrote that EU officials have no right to influence how Poles choose their authorities. He accused Brussels of attempting to expand its powers into areas not covered by the treaties, and emphasized that the choice of authorities should be determined by the will of the citizens expressed at the ballot boxes, not by pressure from EU officials. https://t.co/91QanpHdcD #Polska #demokracja #UniaEuropejska (translated)
The author of the entry expressed surprise that Nawrocki certainly questioned the status of the person elected by the Sejm as a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal. He reminded that Article 194(1) of the Constitution entrusts the Sejm with the competence to select judges of the Tribunal. At the same time, the author pointed to concerns about the constitutional validity of the procedure for affirming the election of Nawrocki as president. He wrote that the resolution on this matter was adopted by the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court, whose status as a court established by law was challenged in European case law. He indicated that Article 129(1) of the Constitution requires the Supreme Court to affirm the validity of the president's election but does not determine the legal consequences of the indicated irregularities. The author criticized Nawrocki for instructing first-year law students and called on him to show greater respect for the Constitution, also in matters concerning his own office. #Konstytucja #Prawo #Sędziowie (translated)
Krzysztof Sałek from KO Stalowa Wola wrote that Judge Maciej Berek had been waiting for weeks for Nawrocki's response. He accused Nawrocki of hiding in the palace and ignoring the constitutional duty to take the oath, as well as pretending to deliberate and assess, which — as Sałek stated — he was not competent to do. He described the entire situation as pathetic. https://t.co/9br0sd9vdP #Polska #Konstytucja #Sąd (translated)
Author r00t🇪🇺 accused Bogucki of omitting the Constitution, the hierarchy of legal sources, and circumstances in his interpretation that—according to the author—did not fit his thesis. He reminded that according to Article 194(1) of the Constitution, judges of the Constitutional Tribunal are elected by the Sejm, and the president has no right to approve this election or politically verify it. According to the author, Article 4(1) of the Act on the Status of Judges of the CT concerned the taking of an oath but did not grant the president the right of veto. The author cited the judgment of the CT K 34/15 from December 3, 2015, stating that the Tribunal recognized that the lack of a statutory deadline for taking an oath means an obligation to act without delay, with the possibility of considering exceptional, objective circumstances. He questioned Bogucki's argument about the change of law and urged him to specify a particular normative change that would justify departing from this interpretation. He added that the fundamental structure of the oath before the president remained unchanged, as did Article 194(1) of the Constitution. Discussing the judgment K 3/26 from May 12, 2026, the author pointed out that Justyn Piskorski sat in the adjudicating panel, whose status—he wrote—was linked to the flawed composition of the CT considered by the ECtHR in the case of Xero Flor v. Poland. He also accused Bogucki of failing to mention the publication of the judgment in the Journal of Laws, required—according to the author—by Article 190(2) of the Constitution. The author also recalled the dissenting opinions of Rafał Wojciechowski and Jarosław Wyrembak. According to his account, Wojciechowski accused the majority of going beyond the limits of the request and creating a norm contrary to Article 194(1) of the Constitution, while Wyrembak questioned the sentence and pointed to the obligation to take the oath as a consequence of the obligation to submit it. The author also noted that the justification of K 3/26 referred to extraordinary, objective, and justified circumstances, not to the unlimited political freedom of the president. Questioning Article 5 of the Act on the Status of Judges of the CT, the author stated that adopting Bogucki’s interpretation could mean granting the president an actual ability to block the effects of the election made by the Sejm. He urged him to indicate a provision of the Constitution establishing such a competence. He added that Article 126 does not constitute a blanket authorization for extending the president's powers, and its paragraph 3 specifies that the president performs tasks on the principles laid down in the Constitution and laws. Finally, the author accused Bogucki of selective use of provisions and case law. He wrote that the lack of a statutory deadline does not grant the president the right to indefinitely block the constitutional competences of the Sejm. #Konstytucja #Prawo #Polska (translated)
Kafir wrote that he increasingly considered elitism to be better than democracy, because — as he claimed — in elections the vote of a person with knowledge and experience carries the same weight as the vote of a person without basic competencies. He noted that elitism, in his opinion, did not depend on wealth or education, but on knowledge, reason, and the ability to think independently. He criticized voters who — according to him — assessed economic policy without knowledge of issues such as inflation, budget, or monetary policy. As examples, he referred to people shopping at Lidl and Biedronka, as well as checking purchase prices, and accused some of them of confusing daily savings with the competencies needed to evaluate the state's finances. At the same time, he emphasized that simply looking for cheaper products was not bad. Kafir also criticized politicians who — as he wrote — lacked experience in running businesses or managing budgets, yet held positions that allowed them to decide on significant public expenditures. He accused right-wing groups of citing religion, tradition, and national values while simultaneously supporting strong authority without proper oversight. He argued that appeals to patriotism and religion did not replace the knowledge and competencies necessary to govern the state. He compared the expectations placed on children in their education to the expectations of politicians. He wrote that parents usually required their children to learn math and helped them acquire knowledge, yet some voters — in his opinion — did not expect similar competencies from those seeking power. He compared governing the state to entrusting a ten-year-old child with the household budget without parental control, pointing out that promises of unfunded expenditures could lead to debt. The author accused voters of re-electing politicians despite their mistakes if they promised them more money, and that they rejected criticism as a lack of patriotism. He claimed that some people did not want to check information or analyze arguments and instead trusted loud political messages. In conclusion, he asked why voters demanded education from children but did not require knowledge from politicians before entrusting them with power. He also mentioned the action "7 percent of 460," relating it to the number of deputies, and stated that there were at most 7 percent of wise ones among them. #Demokracja #Elitaryzm #Edukacja (translated)
