| Sumario: | The analyses included in this article concern sample statements (within Polish "legal" public debates) that have formed two quite distinct discourses in recent years: 1) "discourse on so-called understudy judges" (of the Constitutional Tribunal) and 2) "discourse on so-called neo-judges". I suspect that public debates on jurisprudence are not as valuable as we would like to see them. In my opinion, these debates therefore require analyses of the degree or manner of realization of the postulated functions of discursive practices in this field of activity, which include, among others, access to "credible information" enabling members of society to form their own opinions and to be guided by their own judgment in the public space. These postulated functions are not realized, for example, when statements in these "legal" public debates mask real, social problems.
|
|---|