People Power Party: “President’s Supreme Court Justice Shopping is Unconstitutional”

Members of the People Power Party's Legislation and Judiciary Committee strongly condemned the Blue House's request for a re-nomination instead of submitting a motion for the appointment of Supreme Court Justice nominee Son Bong-gi. They pointed out that Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution explicitly states that Supreme Court Justices are appointed upon the Chief Justice's recommendation, and the President's request for re-nomination is the creation of an authority without constitutional basis and an unconstitutional act.

People Power Party lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee criticized the act of not sending the appointment motion at all as fundamentally blocking the National Assembly's confirmation hearing and plenary session voting procedures. They emphasized that this is a fundamental infringement of personnel rights, distinct from the ruling party exercising its right to reject, and an act that eliminates the National Assembly's very opportunity to evaluate a candidate.

The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee argued that the Chief Justice's right to nominate is a constitutional mechanism to check the executive branch's influence, and if only individuals pre-arranged with the President can be nominated, there would be no reason for the Constitution to grant the Chief Justice the power of nomination. They added that prior consultation with the Blue House is merely a custom, not a legally required procedure, and therefore cannot undermine constitutional principles.

The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee sternly warned that if the President attempts to influence trials by filling all 20 or so future Supreme Court Justice positions with people to the President's liking, it would be a reckless attempt that goes beyond conflicts of interest and destroys the principles of judicial independence, political neutrality, and separation of powers. They pointed out that this poses a serious risk of undermining judicial independence.

People Power Party lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee stated that the very act of not submitting the appointment motion could infringe on the National Assembly's authority, thus allowing the National Assembly to file a constitutional dispute trial. They also mentioned that the Supreme Court itself could file such a trial, hinting at the possibility of legal action.

The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee argued that the request for re-nomination itself is not lawful, and accordingly, reconstituting the already dissolved Supreme Court Justice Candidate Recommendation Committee is also inappropriate. They believe it is also incorrect to choose one of the existing candidates and recommend them again, pointing out the unconstitutionality of all these methods of response.

The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, who defined the Blue House's request for re-nomination as a crisis for judicial independence, emphasized that the judiciary must show its resolve at this opportunity. They urged the Supreme Court and the National Court Administration to strongly pursue legal measures, including a constitutional dispute trial, to uphold judicial independence.

People Power Party lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee criticized the President's act of refusing to recommend a specific candidate and requesting re-nomination as an exercise of power without basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Court Organization Act. They pointed out that this 'Supreme Court Justice shopping' is an unprecedented unconstitutional act in constitutional history and an attempt to seriously undermine judicial independence.

Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution explicitly states that Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President upon the Chief Justice's recommendation and with the consent of the National Assembly. The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee emphasized that there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution or the Court Organization Act stating that the President can reject a nomination or request a re-nomination.

The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee pointed out that refusing to submit the appointment motion at all means eliminating the National Assembly's very opportunity to judge a candidate's suitability. They criticized this as an act of avoiding political responsibility by blocking the procedure itself, which is the National Assembly's inherent right and responsibility to judge candidate suitability, and argued that this is a clear infringement of authority.

The lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee explained that the Chief Justice's right to nominate is a constitutional mechanism designed to check the executive branch's influence over judicial personnel. They emphasized that prior consultation with the Blue House is merely a custom, and since the right to nominate is explicitly stipulated in the Constitution as the Chief Justice's authority, this constitutionally granted judicial authority should not be undermined by custom.

People Power Party lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee sternly warned that if the President attempts to destroy the independence and political neutrality of the judiciary by filling all 20 or so Supreme Court Justice positions with people to the regime's liking, it would be a reckless attempt that goes beyond conflicts of interest. The People Power Party stated that it would not tolerate a judiciary composed according to the regime's preferences.

People Power Party lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee stated that the very act of not submitting the appointment motion could infringe on the National Assembly's authority, thus allowing the National Assembly to file a constitutional dispute trial. They also mentioned that the Supreme Court itself could file such a trial, emphasizing that legal action is being considered at both the National Assembly and judicial levels.

People Power Party lawmakers on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee viewed the Blue House's unprecedented request for re-nomination in constitutional history as a great crisis for the judiciary, and potentially a turning point where judicial independence could be completely undermined. Therefore, they strongly urged the Supreme Court and the National Court Administration to show their resolve through strong legal measures, including a constitutional dispute trial, to uphold judicial independence.