Chief Justice Rejects Presidential Request for New Supreme Court Nomination
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said he found no constitutional basis for the presidential office’s request to recommend a different candidate, deepening a dispute over appointment powers and an unfilled seat on Korea’s highest court.
South Korea’s chief justice has rejected a request from the presidential office to recommend a different candidate for a Supreme Court seat, escalating a constitutional dispute between the executive branch and the judiciary over their respective roles in filling the country’s highest court.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae said Tuesday that he could not comply because the request did not state either a reason for seeking a new recommendation or the constitutional basis for doing so. Cho said he could identify no other specific constitutional ground that would justify requiring him to repeat the nomination process.
The presidential office made the request last month after objecting to Cho’s written recommendation of two candidates to President Lee Jae Myung. Cho had put forward Son Bong-kie of the Daegu District Court and Kim Sung-soo, who was then serving as a Seoul High Court judge.
The disagreement also broke with the usual procedure surrounding Supreme Court appointments. The chief justice typically recommends a candidate to the president in person after the two offices have coordinated in advance. This time, Cho delivered his recommendations in writing after the two sides failed to agree on Son’s nomination.
The presidential office responded to Cho’s refusal by expressing deep regret and arguing that his position was inconsistent with the Constitution. It said Cho’s statement appeared to place the chief justice’s power to recommend candidates above the president’s authority to appoint Supreme Court justices.
The office also pressed Cho to prevent the dispute from prolonging a vacancy, warning that an unfilled Supreme Court seat would ultimately harm the public. The exchange leaves the two institutions at odds not only over an individual candidate but also over how recommendation and appointment authority should operate when prior consultations fail to produce agreement.
One of the two people recommended by Cho has already completed the appointment process. Kim Sung-soo was appointed as a Supreme Court justice last week after the National Assembly approved his confirmation. The remaining disagreement centers on the other nomination and the unresolved vacancy.
The standoff now puts attention on whether the presidential office and the chief justice can find a procedural path forward without either side retreating from its stated view of the Constitution. Cho’s refusal makes clear that he does not regard the executive’s request alone as sufficient grounds for submitting a replacement nominee, while the presidential office maintains that the president’s appointment power must be given proper constitutional weight.