Court Insiders: Chief Justice's Written Nomination 'Inevitable Choice,' but Confrontation Causes Concern

▲ Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae

Regarding Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's written nomination of Supreme Court justice candidates without an agreement with the presidential office, insiders within the court have generally evaluated it as an "inevitable decision."

However, concerns are also being detected that this incident could lead to a prolonged standoff between the presidential office and the judiciary.

Synthesizing Yonhap News reports today (the 20th), incumbent judges agreed that Chief Justice Cho likely had no other choice in nominating the candidates.

With the successor position remaining vacant for five months following the retirement of former Supreme Court Justice Noh Tae-ak last March, and with Supreme Court Justice Lee Heung-goo scheduled to retire next month, the nomination could no longer be delayed.

"I believe this nomination had both justification and timing," a judge at a metropolitan court evaluated. "If the vacancy of Supreme Court justices is prolonged, the public ultimately suffers. The Chief Justice made this decision with the public in mind."

Another judge pointed out, "The Chief Justice's nomination itself seems to have no issues. The Constitution specifies that the Chief Justice nominates Supreme Court justices and the President appoints them, but there is no basis anywhere stating that both sides must coordinate in advance."

They explained that given yesterday's explanation by Roh Kyung-pil, Minister of National Court Administration, that Chief Justice Cho had requested a meeting with the President but the presidential office refused, he had all the more reason to push ahead with the nomination at this point.

Some analyses suggest that considering the qualifications of Chief Justice Cho's nominees—Senior Judge Sohn Bong-ki (60, Judicial Research and Training Institute 22nd class) of the Daegu District Court and Senior Judge Kim Sung-soo (57, 24th class) of the Seoul High Court—there is no justification to refuse their appointments.

"If there were ethical controversies surrounding the candidates, they could be dismissed for that reason, but the nominees this time do not have such issues," a judge predicted. "Even if the presidential office refuses appointment, it will not be easy to explain the reason."

However, judges commonly expressed concern that the conflict between the presidential office and the Supreme Court caused by this situation is unlikely to be easily resolved.

This is because, while the ruling bloc reacts with outrage, claiming an infringement on the President's appointment power, Chief Justice Cho is also unlikely to back down or withdraw the nomination.

"I am worried about the continued tension between the Chief Justice and the President ahead of massive reforms, such as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices," a judge said. "It is more problematic because it does not seem like it will subside early."

Another judge stated, "Since the tradition of the Supreme Court making single nominations for candidates was established after democratization, this is the first time such a situation has occurred. The nominated candidates also seem to be in an awkward position, 'caught between the two sides.'"

While some within the ruling bloc even mention the impeachment of Chief Justice Cho, the general assessment among judges is that this matter does not legally constitute grounds for impeachment.

There is also a forecast that early impeachment would be difficult because the 20th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific is scheduled to be held in Seoul from the 16th to the 19th of next month.

Amid this situation, suggestions are being made that both sides should regain their composure and observe the National Assembly's review of the candidates as stipulated by the Constitution.

A senior judge diagnosed, "It seems they are treating each other too emotionally right now. Since the Chief Justice has nominated the candidates, it is now 'the National Assembly's time.' The National Assembly should strictly review their qualifications, and if they vote it down, [the President] should not appoint them; if they consent, they should be appointed."

※