If a author would like another note (so out of momentum), I offer him a minute of reflection on the title question. In the bonus, I will answer why in 1989 the strategy continuity with the PRL was maintained, alternatively of announcing a return to the April Constitution.
The point is that the law regulates many aspects of everyday life, which we frequently do not think about in the context of a "fight over courts". Hence 1 of the stupidest quotes of the 3rd Polish Republic, “there is nothing about me in the Constitution.”
We're talking reptile, and someone's proposing to someone. At the same time, individual else says, "We're over, I want a divorce." Yet another had purchased a favorable price for the utilized car, and another just got fired.
All these people have 1 thing in common. They want to sign any kind of paper according to 1 law or another. The announcement of the interruption of legal continuity will be a drama for them.
It will not be known under which rules they are to marry or dissolve. How to registry and de-register a car. How to calculate the severance fee due to be released. And so on.
Therefore, even during a revolution or coup, the fresh authorities seldom announce the complete liquidation of all the ancien government institutions. This is why the phenomenon of unusual laws in force in various countries since the deep mediate Ages. Examples of countries with extremist break-up (Cambodia, Iraq, Russia) are not peculiarly encouraging.
This was never done in Poland. III of the Republic of Poland has maintained legal continuity with the Polish People's Republic, the Polish People's Republic of Poland from the Second Republic, the Second Republic with occupations. In 1918 the restoration of the First Republic was not announced, but the law of the possessive states continued (his last relics were abolished only in the Polish People's Republic; for example, the Napoleon Code was formally in force in the erstwhile congressional area until 1946).
This shows the past of the ultimate Court well. He was established in the puppet Kingdom of Poland, which was proclaimed by Germany and Austrians in 1916.
The possessors (in more detail, then the occupiers) did not agree with each another on who would be the "king" of this country. Thus, it was "ruled" by the Regency Council, which created respective institutions that inactive operate today. Among them is the ultimate Court.
The first I president of the SN was Stanisław Srzednicki, a compromise candidate, due to the fact that he was appointed by Western invaders, but he was the highest ranking Polish justice in the Russian partition. After gaining independency Piłsudski could fire him (as the State Chief could theoretically anything). But he didn't.
Independence by independence, but individual then went on trial for another year with his neighbour about the city. He would not love free Poland if this full thing reset him to zero.
The last I president in independent Poland was Leon Supiński. After the war, the communists wanted to keep the appearance of continuity, so they took him to their ultimate Court, this time as the Second President. shortly they forced him to rest.
The first communist I president of the SN was Wacław Barcikowski (from 1945 to 1956). He was known before the war as a prosecutor and a lawyer. Well, the collaborators among the elite will be found even behind Stalin.
The last I president of the Communist ultimate Court was Prof. Adam Szpatka. The State Council appointed him in 1987 for a five-year word (theoretically until May 1992).
However, the Mazowieckie Government carried out a bill in the Sejm that reduced this term. In May 1990, all 109 SN judges were expelled.
Why is present a scandal and then not? due to the fact that in the times of the PRL, the judges were not indisposable. Peerelowski's judges were thrown out in accordance with the Peerelian law. Only their successors were to be inescapable (as it turned out, only for 28 years).
Contrary to what the duck propaganda claims today, the judges have been cleared. Only 22 of these 109 were accepted, only Prof. Szpatka was lost. His successor was Prof. Adam Strzembosz, the first First president of the SN in free Poland.
If individual believed in Ziemkiewicz’s “Michnikovszwódź”, he most likely thinks that “Gazeta Wyborcza” was defending Peerelski judges. I remind you that Ziemkiewicz wrote this book on the basis of what he thought he remembered – not questions in the archives.
I urge the article "Samo-judgment" of 30 May 1990, in which Wanda Falkowska described this cleansing and justified it by the fact that "some resolutions of the SN were simply shameful", quoting, among others, an example of the political judgement of 27 June 1988.
To sum up, is the ultimate Court post-communist? In a way, yes. But in the same way as in the Second Republic he was post-absorbent. Or even smaller, due to the fact that there was no cleansing in 1918.
