Controversy over Lee Jae-myung's Veto Power on Supreme Court Justice Nomination

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung rejected the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Son Bong-ki and accepted only Kim Seong-soo's nomination. It was pointed out that Lee Jae-myung disfavored Son Bong-ki due to his background as a judge from the Yeongnam region. This has sparked suspicions that a specific individual's background was considered in the Supreme Court justice nomination process.

Justice Kim Seong-soo is from the Jeolla region and is evaluated as having left-leaning tendencies. It has been argued that Lee Jae-myung prefers individuals with specific inclinations to favorably influence his trials. This raises concerns about undermining the independence of the judiciary.

To explain the fairness of the Supreme Court justice nomination process, the case of professor recruitment at Ulsan University was mentioned. It was emphasized that Ulsan University prioritizes academic quality, and conflicts of interest must be thoroughly excluded from the professor recruitment process. Similarly, it was argued that the Supreme Court justice nomination process should not be entangled with any conflicts of interest. It was stressed that Supreme Court justice nominations must be based solely on legal expertise and neutrality, and should not be a means for specific political or personal gain.

Judge Kim Min-ki has a history of acquitting Kim Man-bae in the Daejang-dong case. It has been argued that Lee Jae-myung is insisting on Judge Kim Min-ki's appointment to ensure favorable outcomes in his own trials. This raises serious questions about the fairness of the judicial system. Criticism is emerging that Lee Jae-myung might be pushing for the appointment of a specific judge for his personal judicial interests. Such actions raise concerns that they could shake the foundation of the rule of law.

Growing doubts are being raised about Lee Jae-myung's push to appoint Judge Kim Min-ki, an interested party, as a Supreme Court justice. It is argued that under normal politics, such an individual should be excluded, and this insistence is highly criticizable. Lee Jae-myung's stance can be interpreted as a serious challenge to judicial independence.

It was argued that the criticism that Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae is attempting to seize control of the Supreme Court is unjust. It was stated that the Chief Justice exercises normal authority appointed according to legal procedures, and claims that he intends to control the judiciary with specific intentions are unfounded. This is a rebuttal that it is an attempt to distort the Chief Justice's legitimate performance of duties.

The situation where Judge Kim Min-ki and Judge Oh Young-jun, a married couple, are placed in the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively, has been highlighted, leading to claims that the couple is acting organizationally to defend Lee Jae-myung's trials. Suspicions have been raised that Judge Oh Young-jun became a Constitutional Court justice by currying favor with Lee Jae-myung. It is believed that Judge Kim Min-ki becoming a Supreme Court justice and Judge Oh Young-jun becoming a Constitutional Court justice are intended to shield Lee Jae-myung from judicial risks. This suggests the possibility of distorting judicial procedures through 'private interests' and raises serious concerns about the fairness and trustworthiness of the judicial system. These suspicions are criticized for undermining the principle of judicial independence and shaking the foundations of democracy.

There were strong demands for Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae not to act petty or show weakness regarding Lee Jae-myung's exercise of veto power over Supreme Court justice nominations. Calls were made to convene a full meeting of Supreme Court justices to discuss whether Lee Jae-myung's actions, which are seen as violating the Constitution and indefinitely delaying trials, are legitimate. The justices, regardless of whether they are left-leaning or Lee Jae-myung's loyalists, were urged to speak their minds honestly, staking their names and convictions, and to record all details in the minutes. This is interpreted as a powerful demand for a resolute stance in upholding the spirit of the Constitution rather than cowardly compromise. With the public watching, voices are growing for the Chief Justice to lead in defending the rule of law and judicial independence.

Criticism was raised, asking why Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae is being so wary when his term is limited. It was argued that attempts at impeachment, disregarding constitutional procedures, are unjust, and that if he speaks his mind confidently, the public will support him. A warning was also added that he should act cautiously and with conviction, as it is a decision that will be recorded in history.

It was claimed that former lawmaker Yoo Seong-min had requested a meeting with former President Park Geun-hye's side a year ago, but received no reply. The lack of response from Park's side was interpreted as a de facto refusal to meet. This suggests that Park's side clearly has no intention of meeting Yoo.

Han Dong-hoon, Yoo Seong-min, Lee Jun-seok, and others were likened to 'cancer cells,' emphasizing that normal cells and cancer cells cannot coexist. It was argued that since cancer cells continuously encroach on normal cells, 'eradication' rather than unity is necessary. This is interpreted as a strong stance against critical factions within the party.

Han Dong-hoon and Lee Jun-seok were urged not to remain in existing parties but to form their own parties if they are confident. They were also challenged to test their political viability independently, without the help of the National Election Commission. This carries a critical view that their current political standing may not be solely due to their own abilities.

Past positive evaluations of Minister Kim Moon-soo were withdrawn. Criticism was raised regarding his attitude of colluding with Lee Jun-seok and others, and his actions after the controversial election fraud allegations, as well as his insistence on bringing in Lee Jun-seok, became targets of criticism. This indicates a skeptical view of the People Power Party's internal political moves. Intense criticism, including the strong expression that Minister Kim Moon-soo's remarks seemed 'brainless,' continued.

The necessity of introducing a direct election system for the People Power Party's district committee chairpersons, where residents directly elect them, was raised. Criticism was made that existing district committee chairpersons monopolize nomination rights and form corrupt cartels surrounding local councilor nominations. Pointing out the problem of nominating 'traitorous' or 'corrupt' forces to become National Assembly members, or retaining their positions even if they lose, it was argued that the power to elect district committee chairpersons should be granted to residents.

Criticism was raised against splinter parties aiming to rejoin the People Power Party rather than pursuing independent paths. It was argued that individuals who planned and executed election fraud cannot be trusted to form and operate parties. Emphasizing that past experience reflects the present, attempts by specific factions to regain power were criticized.

Strong criticism was leveled against believing in theories of U.S. military intervention, such as Delta Force or aircraft carriers, calling it a lazy and dirty attitude. It was pointed out that the problem is the passive attitude of expecting others to solve problems without taking action oneself, and it was asserted that the possibility of aircraft carriers and Delta Force coming is zero. It was emphasized that the foundation of the free citizen movement is to break the cartels of politicians, and that problems must be solved through self-reliance. This stresses the importance of abandoning a passive attitude that only hopes for external help and acting proactively.