Korea
Korean originalTranslated
Chief Justice Cho refuses new Supreme Court nomination; presidential office expresses regret
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae rejected the presidential office’s request for a new Supreme Court justice nomination on the 22nd, saying it lacked constitutional grounds. The presidential office issued two statements expressing regret.
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on the 22nd that he would not accept the presidential office’s request for a new Supreme Court justice nomination. He said the request lacked constitutional grounds, 25 days after receiving it on the 28th of the previous month, and the presidential office expressed regret in two statements.
Cho said in his statement that the president’s acts in matters of state must take the form of documents countersigned by the prime minister and the relevant cabinet members. He said the request document did not specify reasons or constitutional grounds, and that he could not comply because he could find no grounds or reasons to justify it.
On the 28th of the previous month, the presidential office requested a new nomination, alleging procedural problems with the recommendation to appoint Son Bong-gi, a presiding judge at the Daegu District Court, to succeed former Supreme Court Justice Roh Tae-ak. It objected that the nomination had been submitted only in writing, without consultation with President Lee Jae-myung or a presidential meeting, and sent the Supreme Court a request document in the president’s name.
About 30 minutes after the refusal was announced, the presidential office countered that an argument requiring the president to appoint the chief justice’s nominee as presented would undermine the president’s appointment power. In a second statement, it criticized the chief justice for professing ignorance of already known reasons for returning the nomination because they were absent from the official document.
Connected coverage
Related stories in one view
Continue in chronological order.
Politics ·
Democratic Party criticizes Cho's nomination refusal, signals leadership talks on impeachment
Lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea, Rebuilding Korea Party and Progressive Party on the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee criticized Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae on the 22nd for refusing a request to nominate a Supreme Court justice again. They called it a political act violating the judiciary's duty of political neutrality, while the Democratic Party side said it intended to discuss with party leaders whether to pursue impeachment.
The lawmakers cited Article 104(2) of the Constitution, which provides for nomination by the chief justice, parliamentary consent and appointment by the president. They argued that requesting a new nominee was a legitimate exercise of presidential appointment power, rebutting Cho's position that there were no constitutional grounds or reasons to justify it.
The Democratic Party requested that Cho appear as a witness at the judiciary committee's parliamentary audit in October. The lawmakers also said they intended to establish the facts of the matter during the audit.
Community discussion
View board →Loading discussions…
Politics ·
Cho Hee-dae plans to explain justice renomination issue at parliamentary audit
Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said on his first commute to work after the Chuseok holiday that he would explain the Supreme Court justice renomination issue at a National Assembly audit.
Asked by reporters whether he meant that future statements would also be conveyed through a spokesperson, Cho said the request had only called for renomination, so his reply had likewise given only a conclusion. He said he had heard that this had left reporters with many questions.
He added that he would address the matter at the forthcoming parliamentary audit. He also said he would convey any necessary information to reporters through a spokesperson.
On the 22nd, Cho said he could not accept the presidential office's request to renominate a successor to former Supreme Court Justice Noh Tae-ak.
He explained that, because the president's acts in matters of state are made in writing, he had based his judgment on the written renomination request sent by the presidential office on the 28th of the previous month. He said the document contained neither specific reasons for the request nor constitutional grounds.
Community discussion
View board →Loading discussions…