Controversy erupts as a sociology professor calls for drastic measures against four judges in Poland’s Constitutional Court
A recent interview revealed that a well-known professor urged Donald Tusk’s coalition to use police action to remove four sitting judges from the Constitutional Court. The professor framed the move as a necessary response to what he described as illegal acts by the current government and, in his remarks, criticized PiS voters as well. The conversation, published by Gazeta Wyborcza, has sparked immediate debate about constitutional procedure, legality, and political rhetoric in Poland today. The professor defended his stance by insisting that legal formalities should not constrain the pursuit of what he viewed as restoring constitutional order. He suggested that the authorities must take decisive steps to ensure the integrity of the Tribunal, and he implied that the executive branch should take responsibility for any such expulsions. The professor did not advocate for the army but pointed to the police as the required instrument for removing the four individuals he claimed were acting as judges without proper authority. He stressed that these individuals extorted wages and possibly violated the law. The core question remains: who is authorized to remove the judges in question, and which branch holds that power when the court is perceived to be blocked or nonfunctional? The professor argued that once the TVP broadcasting system could be unblocked, the mechanism for unblocking the Constitutional Court should be similarly accessible to renew constitutional governance. This point was presented as part of a broader plan to address a perceived breakdown in the Polish constitutional order. The interview also touched on the relationship between legality and legitimacy, with the professor claiming that current legal positivists adhere to statutes written by political actors who he believed are not accountable. He argued that there is a need to appeal to global ethics to redefine what constitutes a legal standard in order to restore constitutional order in Poland. He described a tension between acting within the letter of the law and the necessity of actions he believed would correct what he saw as a systemic failure. Two remarks from the interview drew particular attention. The professor argued that a portion of the population is risk-averse and desires certainty, drawing comparisons to historical funding schemes and clientelist policies from the communist era. He suggested that some voters align with the ruling party out of habit or loyalty rather than policy convictions. The professor described PiS voters as falling into three groups: older individuals with strong church ties who prefer the status quo; emotional supporters swayed by myths such as the Smolensk narrative; and a third group he called pragmatic or opportunistic, who look out for personal advancement. He framed these groups as a sample of about five to seven percent of the electorate that could influence election outcomes. The interview raised concerns about whether the present government has met the professor’s expectations for rapid, law-based action, and whether there is a risk of further illegal steps against Poland’s Constitutional Court. Critics wondered whether the course outlined by the professor could echo into real policy action and whether the government might pursue similar measures against the Court. As the discussion circulated, observers noted the broader political atmosphere in which media authority and public messaging intersect with constitutional processes. The piece concluded with a critical reminder of the ongoing tension between political strategy and the rule of law, underscoring the potential implications for Poland’s constitutional framework. The exchange is cited in contemporary political discourse as a signal of how some academics and commentators view the balance between legality and necessity when a state faces what they regard as a crisis in governance. The scene remains a flashpoint for debates about judicial independence, executive power, and the limits of political influence over the judiciary. This summary references the interview as reported by Gazeta Wyborcza and related reporting outlets. Additional context has been provided by coverage from wPolityce.
READ ALSO:
– Commentary on the provocative rhetoric used by the professor in relation to Tusk’s language and the broader semantic framing of political villains
– Reports about the professor’s controversial actions and comments during public appearances and their reception among different political camps
Source: wPolityce