Editorials
Ruling party threatens chief justice over Supreme Court nominations
The DP's pressure on Chief Justice Jo Hee-de risks undermining judicial independence amid a dispute over Supreme Court nominees.
Chief Justice Jo Hee-de arrives for work at the Supreme Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, on Aug. 19. A day earlier, Jo recommended Son Bong-gi, a presiding judge at the Daegu District Court, and Kim Sung-soo, a presiding judge at the Seoul High Court, to President Lee Jae Myung for appointment as Supreme Court justices.
YONHAP
A fierce clash has erupted between Chief Justice Jo Hee-de and the ruling bloc after Jo submitted recommendations for new Supreme Court justices in writing without prior coordination with the presidential office.
Under the Constitution, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president upon the chief justice’s recommendation and with National Assembly consent. Traditionally, the chief justice has coordinated with the presidential office beforehand. The Supreme Court says it repeatedly sought consultations but failed to reach agreement, apparently because the two sides differed over the candidates.
Even so, Jo cannot escape criticism for abandoning the longstanding practice of face-to-face coordination and instead delivering his recommendations in writing, effectively narrowing the possibility of further consultation. Despite the judiciary’s argument that Supreme Court vacancies could not be left unfilled, both sides should have made every effort to communicate and reach an agreement.
The Democratic Party’s (DP) response, however, has gone too far.
DP leader Kim Min-seok publicly pressured Jo to resign, calling him a “delinquent student begging to be expelled.” Kim also called Jo “the worst chief justice since liberation” and said that unless the judiciary itself determined Jo had acted improperly, all Supreme Court justices should voluntarily retire and the court should be reconstituted.
Some lawmakers even raised the possibility of impeachment. Threatening the head of the judiciary with impeachment while disregarding its legal requirements amounts to a political attack that undermines the constitutional separation of powers and judicial independence. A departure from established convention cannot itself constitute grounds for impeachment. The threats therefore appear intended to pressure Jo into resigning voluntarily.
The solution lies in respecting both legal principles and the tradition of consultation.
The presidential office should request the National Assembly’s consent, while lawmakers should begin confirmation hearings and thoroughly scrutinize the candidates recommended by the chief justice. Their qualifications should be assessed through established legal procedures, with the Assembly deciding whether to consent to their appointments. If the nominees are rejected, the recommendation process can begin again.
Prolonged vacancies on the Supreme Court would ultimately hurt the public by delaying trials. Political leaders and the judiciary should stop trading harsh words and blame and instead return to the constitutional principles governing judicial appointments.
Disagreements over candidates or the customary consultation process should not escalate into a confrontation threatening judicial independence. Nor should impeachment be wielded as a political weapon without constitutional grounds.
The priority should be to scrutinize the nominees through procedures prescribed by law, allow the National Assembly to exercise its constitutional authority and resolve the impasse through genuine communication.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
