Cho Hui-dae’s Refusal Sparks Repeated Blue House Rebuttals, Ruling Party Warnings, and Full Opposition Support

Blue House and Supreme Court Clash Over Supreme Court Justice Re-nomination
Cho Huidae States, "There Is No Reason for Re-nomination Request"
Blue House Rebuts: "Is He the Only One Who Doesn't Understand When the Public Already Knows?"

The Blue House and the Supreme Court have clashed head-on over the issue of a "re-nomination request for Supreme Court justices." Chief Justice Cho Hui-dae stated that "there is no reason for a re-nomination request," to which the Blue House responded with an unusually strong rebuttal, issuing two statements in a single day: "Is he saying he is the only one who doesn't understand when everyone else does?" However, the Blue House drew the line at the prospect of requesting a power dispute adjudication.

On the 22nd, Chief Justice Cho released a statement saying he could not comply with the Blue House’s request to re-nominate a candidate for Supreme Court justice. In response, the Blue House issued an additional press notice on the same matter, countering Cho’s position. In its earlier notice, the Blue House criticized Chief Justice Cho with a relatively brief statement; then, a few hours later, it refuted his comments one by one, quoting and addressing each assertion in detail.

Yonhap News Agency

Chief Justice Cho explained his grounds for refusal by saying, "State affairs conducted by the President must be carried out by documents countersigned by the Prime Minister and relevant ministers, in accordance with the law." However, the Blue House pointed out that "the official document was issued as an electronic document and was countersigned by the Prime Minister," adding, "Until now, Supreme Court justices and chief justices have been appointed solely with the signature of the Prime Minister." While Chief Justice Cho portrayed the re-nomination request procedure as legally flawed, the Blue House asserted that there were no such issues with the process.

The Blue House also took issue with Chief Justice Cho’s remark that "the specific reason for the re-nomination request and its constitutional basis are not spelled out." The Blue House responded, saying, "The President chose not to use the terms 'return' or 'reject' in the official document as a courtesy to the Chief Justice, a constitutional officer," and cited Article 104(2) of the Constitution and Article 41(2) of the Court Organization Act as their basis. The Blue House went on to remark, "It’s difficult to grasp the intent behind the Chief Justice being the only one to claim ignorance by arguing that he doesn’t know the reason because it was not stated in the official document—when the public is already fully aware."

President Lee and Chief Justice Cho reportedly had an hour-long conversation over tea following the appointment ceremony for Supreme Court Justice Kim Seong-su on the 21st, during which the re-nomination issue was not raised. Although there was a chance to discuss pressing matters openly, instead, both sides ended up engaging in a public dispute. There was even speculation that the Blue House would consider requesting an adjudication on a power dispute from the Constitutional Court, but the Blue House officially stated, "We are not considering this."

Meanwhile, the ruling party has warned that Chief Justice Cho's refusal to accept the re-nomination request could serve as a "trigger for judicial reform." Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok called it "an unprecedented, clearly unconstitutional, unlawful, and insurrectionary refusal that, at its core, constitutes neglect of the public," adding, "We will hold him to account and take corrective action." Citing Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Byung-joo, Kim further criticized Chief Justice Cho for allegedly failing to keep proper work hours, stating, "This is an act of deviation that stems from his disregard for both working hours regulations and rules on official expense usage."

The opposition, for its part, is arguing that the Blue House’s request for re-nomination itself is unconstitutional. Floor leader Jeong Jeom-sik of the People Power Party stated, "A re-nomination request without legal basis, and the president's attempt to force the nomination of a desired judge (Presiding Judge Kim Min-gi), violate the Chief Justice’s right to nominate candidates and constitute unconstitutional behavior that destroys the separation of powers." People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk said at a press conference the previous day, "The Chief Justice has shown a firm commitment to defending judicial independence," and emphasized, "We must not stop here, and the trial of President Lee must be resumed."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.