Try harder.

In addition, the Venice Commission recommends that Poland should hold a principled and
balanced debate, which provides enough time for full participation by all institutions, on:
 reform of the procedure and on the organisation of the Court and
 whether and what types of proceedings warrant reasonable time limits before the
Tribunal.

While it is obviously not a good moment, under the present circumstances, to discuss
reform of the Constitution and possible amendments, the Venice Commission nonetheless
recommends that the Constitution be amended in the long run to introduce a qualified majority for the election of the Constitutional Tribunal judges by the Sejm, combined with an effective antideadlock
mechanism. A valid alternative would be to introduce a system by which a third of the judges of the
Constitutional Tribunal are each appointed / elected by three State powers – the President of
Poland, Parliament and the Judiciary. Of course, even in such a system, it would be important for
the parliamentary component to be elected by a qualified majority.

On 9 March 2016, the Constitutional Tribunal held that the Amendments of 22 December are
unconstitutional. The Commission could not examine in detail this judgment

The question whether or not this very high quorum falls short of European standards on its
own, has to be considered within the context of other provisions, notably by taking into account
whether its combination with other provisions can lead to a dysfunction of the Tribunal.

Finally, a number of other provisions have been deleted without apparent reason.

Tylko embe i Isengrim broni PiS kurwiąc logikę, dwa orły.

jeżeli chodzi o samą logikę to akurat kurwisz ją ty i junkier.