The article deals with the practice of invoking philosophers in the reasons for judgments of the Polish courts. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the case law of the common courts, administrative courts, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal allowed for the formulation of several main conclusions. First, although judgments containing references to philosophers constitute only a small fraction of all the case law, at the same time, when measured in absolute numbers, cases of quoting philosophers are not marginal. Second, in the two last decades there has been a clear intensification in the use of philosophical references in judgments. Third, references to philosophers exercise a number of different functions falling within the clarification and persuasive purposes of grounds of judgments. Fourth, there is no one attitude among courts and the parties towards the presence of philosophical arguments in the judicial process. The titular issue is not the further stage of the legal scholarship’s discourse on “judges as philosophers” in the likeness of Dworkin’s “Judge Hercules”. The practice of referring to philosophers by the courts is primarily an issue of the style of reasons for judgment and the role of non-legal sources in the rationalisation of judicial decisions – and not so much in the making of them. In the author’s view, the case law study reveals the utilitarian potential of philosophy for judicial argumentation.

The article discusses the issue of the place and presence of women in the public sphere, and tries to answer the question of how these matters are impacted by the institution of the Constitutional Tribunal. Applying the method of discourse analysis, I have examined the Polish Constitutional Tribunal’s decisions and looked into the media discussion, with both revealing dominant trends regarding women’s rights in Polish constitutionalism. Using the category of counterpublics, I also cover emancipation movements important on account of women’s rights and their presence in the public domain. I also address the common myths concerning the Constitutional Tribunal. There are also mentions of room for the materialisation of emancipation processes in Polish constitutionalism.

This paper reviews the work of Cass R. Sunstein who is a renowned and widely quoted legal scholar and a very prolific writer on a wide range of subjects. I outline herein some themes and ideas expressed in over a dozen C.R. Sunstein’s books that were published between 1993 and 2017. As the title suggests, an emphasis is placed on issues of constitutional relevance. Aiming to place Sunstein’s body of work within a larger context I trace a considerable shift in his approach to political problems and challenges from a purely legal to a more nuanced and multi-dimensional one. Accordingly I present Sunstein’s views on such issues as the partiality of constitutions, incompletely theorized agreements, judicial minimalism, the ideological component of judging, the cost of rights, and group polarization. The works of this contemporary Publius show that pursuing constitutional law in a practical way is much more than study in linguistics or compiling a constitutional court’s decisions. Cass R. Sunstein’s extensive oeuvre provides a rich material for devising new constitutional solutions to real social problems.

The article deals with the practice of invoking philosophers in the reasons for judgments of the Polish courts. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the case law of the common courts, administrative courts, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal allowed for the formulation of several main conclusions. First, although judgments containing references to philosophers constitute only a small fraction of all the case law, at the same time, when measured in absolute numbers, cases of quoting philosophers are not marginal. Second, in the two last decades there has been a clear intensification in the use of philosophical references in judgments. Third, references to philosophers exercise a number of different functions falling within the clarification and persuasive purposes of
grounds of judgments. Fourth, there is no one attitude among courts and the parties towards the presence of philosophical arguments in the judicial process. The titular issue is not the further stage of the legal scholarship’s discourse on “judges as philosophers” in the likeness of Dworkin’s “Judge Hercules”. The practice of referring to philosophers by the courts is primarily an issue of the style of reasons for judgment and the role of non-legal sources in the rationalisation of judicial decisions – and not so much in the making of them. In the author’s view, the case law study reveals the utilitarian potential of philosophy for judicial argumentation.

The paper indicates the most important arguments raised by the participants in the dispute concerning the possibility of control by the administrative courts of decisions of the President of the Republic of Poland on the refusal to appoint a judge and an attempt to make a substantive evaluation of them. In my opinion, the refusal to appoint a judge, as well as refusal to accept the judge’s position under the amended Act on the Supreme Court (SC) should be strictly exceptional and in principle be justified at the constitutional level, which should be seen as the duty of the President to ensure compliance with the Constitution. Both of these resolutions should contain the motives of the President, which would make this act, with all its arbitrariness, more transparent. This is important not only from the point of view of the person concerned, but this also has an important social dimension. The public has the right to know, not only which candidates, who met the requirements for the appointment as a judge and were recommended by the National Council of the Judiciary of Poland (NCJ), were not appointed by the President, but also what reasons were at the heart of such a decision of the Head of State.

In 1942 the American military authorities interned over 120 thousand persons of Japanese ancestry in fear of sabotage on behalf of Japan. In a landmark 1944 case the Supreme Court rehabilitated Fred Korematsu but upheld constitutionality of the wartime laws leading to the internment. As transpired later, there was no evidence of the Japanese-Americans’ forming a fifth-column. The court decision was criticized as unconstitutional and driven by racism. In view of the dissenting judges and commentators it was condemned by the court of history. This article claims that the original decision was justified by the circumstances of the war, including the uncertainties it brought with it. Unless we equip the government with the power of clairvoyance, it has to be able to act, and even err, in emergency. The debate around Korematsu ignored the previous experience of both World Wars in which German fifth columns were active and effective. One such eyewitness account, not known in Western literature, is presented in the article. Modern his-tory confirms that the fifth column as such is a timeless phenomenon. The fear of hybrid wars techniques, justified or not, has led to the reemergence of the fifth column legislation in XXI century, although the range legal instruments intended to contain it is different. It is too early for judges and scholars to speak authorita-tively on behalf of the court of history, for history is still in the making.

The so-called „Beasts Act" is a legal regulation, which deals with particularly dangerous perpetrators convicted by valid sentences for many years before its entry into force and concerns the proceedings against them after serving their prison sentences. Its enactment and entry into force was accompanied by a lot of legal controversy, which ultimately led to its appeal to the Constitutional Tribunal. The Constitutional Tribunal held that the inclusion of people regarded as particularly dangerous does not violate constitutional guarantees of individual rights. The Court said that the placement of the Centre is not of a criminal nature, but only administrative and it is not ruling a second time in the same case. The article critically refers to the thesis of the Constitutional Tribunal and its argumentation.

This article has originated from observations of the current Polish political and legal disputes over the Constitution. In pursuing the reasons for the different lines of the argumentation presented, we have brought the issue of education in constitutional law to attention. We have covered the issue in two stages. The first stage involves a discussion of education models as expounded in social theory. Our starting point was the structural-functional model and its criticism along the lines of conflict, interpretative, and critical theories. This is followed by a presentation of the evolution of administrative-law institutions in the light of the conflict between the expected openness to ethical and political dimensions and the claims for integrity and coherence. To this end, we followed the proposals of Nonet and Selznick. The second stage includes a review of three conceptions of the constitution and constitutionalism. The views of Kelsen, Schmitt as well as the American judicial review doctrine served as model examples. These proposals can be presented as the cornerstones of three visions of constitutional-law education. We did not content ourselves with presenting a set of models of education and covering a reconstruction of the vision of constitutional education. We have also attempted to demonstrate, bearing in mind the nature of the Polish debate over the Constitution, that the judicial review doctrine opens up a promising sphere for a revaluation of both the theory and practice of constitutional law.