The Blue House has once again countered Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae's stance on the rejection of a nomination request for a Supreme Court justice. In response to Cho's assertion that the reasons for the rejection were unclear, the Blue House urged him to "understand the official document from the perspective of an ordinary citizen with sound judgment."
On September 23, the Blue House issued a media statement asserting that "the Chief Justice must accept the president's rejection of the appointment and the nomination request as they are," and emphasized the need to take prompt follow-up actions to ensure that the public's right to a fair trial is not infringed upon.
This marks the third time the Blue House has publicly addressed Cho's refusal to accept the nomination request. Previously, the Blue House expressed regret over Cho's belief that the president's authority to reject nominations is subordinate to the Supreme Court's nomination rights, stating that this view contradicts the constitution. In the second statement, it highlighted that the president's request for a nomination was a legally valid electronic document that had gone through the Prime Minister's office.
On the same day, Cho reiterated that the reasons for the nomination request in the document dated August 28 of last year were not clearly stated.
In response, a Blue House official pointed out that the document explicitly states that the president decided not to submit the appointment agreement for the nominee, Han Bong-ki, to the National Assembly. The official argued that not proceeding with the necessary appointment procedures clearly indicates a refusal to appoint.
The official further criticized Cho's claim that the reasons for the nomination request were unclear, stating, "The document clearly reveals the president's rejection of the appointment, which is the basis for the subsequent request for a nomination."
They also emphasized that submitting an appointment agreement for a nominee whom the president has no intention of appointing is procedurally contradictory.
The Blue House official stated, "When submitting an appointment agreement to the National Assembly, the reason for the proposal must be clearly stated as a request for consent to appoint the candidate as a Supreme Court justice. Submitting an agreement for a candidate who will not be appointed does not show respect for the National Assembly."
Regarding Cho's difficulty in accepting the Blue House's assertion of procedural flaws in the nomination process, the official argued, "Despite receiving four legally recommended candidates from the Supreme Court's Nomination Committee, attempting to contact candidates individually to inquire about their willingness to withdraw without legal grounds is a significant procedural flaw."
They added, "The attempt to exclude legally recommended candidates from the nomination process undermines the fairness of the procedure."
Furthermore, the Blue House reiterated that the president's authority to appoint Supreme Court justices is not merely a formal power that follows the Chief Justice's recommendations. The president, having been granted democratic legitimacy through elections, has the right to assess whether the candidates align with the public's expectations for Supreme Court justices.
The Blue House official stated, "Believing that the president must appoint a specific candidate recommended by the Chief Justice effectively results in the Chief Justice appointing the justices, which undermines the constitutional interpretation that nullifies the appointment authority of the president elected by the people."
They explained that while the constitution of the Third Republic mandated that the president 'must appoint' judges recommended by the Chief Justice, the current constitution simply states that the president 'appoints.'
Additionally, unlike the case of Constitutional Court justices, where the president is required to appoint individuals 'designated' by the Chief Justice, the authority for Supreme Court justices is defined as 'nominating,' which provides the president with substantial decision-making power.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.