So in keeping with the law at the time (well the law they passed), they elected 5 justices to replace up coming vacancies. Later it was ruled that 2 of those nominations were unconstitutional (I think because they were for justices who's terms expired after the new legislature was seated), but the newly elected Law and Justice government refused to seat any of them and elected their own slate of 5 justices. When the constitutional tribunal refused to include those 5 justices until the dispute was resolved, rather than back down the new government raised the threshold to conduct business so that the new justices would have to be included and even worse chose to interpret a clause requiring a majority to mean a supper majority and gave themselves the power to remove justices.
The constitutional tribunal ruled this new law unconstitutional, but because that ruling was not made under the new rules introduced by the again according to them unconstitutional law the new government ignored it.
It's one thing to pass unconstitutional laws and quite another to pass unconstitutional laws and refuse to listen to listen when you're called out on them
This is all fine and good - but the previous governments 'changing of the law' governing Judicial appointments, and then controversially 'stacking the court' to 14 out of 15 appointments in their favour, is clearly the first salvo in a constitutional war.
There is no doubt.
It doesn't matter that 'we don't like the jerks in charge' or that 'they've done bad stuff' - the fact is the crisis was obviously initiated before they came to power.
Much like pretty much everyone here hates Trump (I certainly do), but he was unfairly castigated in the press with the 'Mueller investigations' which de-facto absolved him of any Russian shenanigans. It doesn't matter that he lies about election results - he was not colluding with Russians.
If either side in in the US tried to pull what the previous Polish government did - it would set off major events, possibly conflict, worse than what we're seeing today for sure.
The previous government action was unconstitutional, but it was hardly a crisis. We had all the tools needed to handle such case and those tools got used as they should. Only after later actions of the current government those tools became inadequate to handle the situation, causing the crisis.
We don't call every unconstitutional bill "a crisis" and I'm pretty sure of that as there were quite a lot of them already.
Also, I'm by no means a supporter of the previous government, so you can stop building your strawmans.
BTW:
> 'stacking the court' to 14 out of 15 appointments in their favour
Most of them were appointed with votes from both previous and current ruling parties. Just sayin'.
> which de-facto absolved him of any Russian shenanigans. It doesn't matter that he lies about election results - he was not colluding with Russians.
This is quite literally the opposite of the stated conclusion of the Muller investigation. It's not clear to me how you get "absolved him from any Russia shenanigans". There were clear links between the campaign and Russia (up to and including Trump Jr. meeting with a Russian Lawyer for "dirt" on the Clinton campaign), likely in return for changes to the Magnitsky act. That's all plainly stated in the muller report.
He ultimately didn't charge them because while there may have been intent to collude, it didn't pan out.
The constitutional tribunal ruled this new law unconstitutional, but because that ruling was not made under the new rules introduced by the again according to them unconstitutional law the new government ignored it.
It's one thing to pass unconstitutional laws and quite another to pass unconstitutional laws and refuse to listen to listen when you're called out on them