New nomination panel is proper way out of Supreme Court impasse

President Lee Jae Myung’s rejection of Chief Justice Jo Hee-de’s recommendation of Son Bong-gi for the Supreme Court, coupled with his request for a new nominee, has thrown the appointment process into uncertainty. Whatever the reason, a direct clash between the president’s appointment authority and the chief justice’s nomination authority is bound to raise public concern.

Finding a solution must be the priority. The constitutional controversy triggered by the unprecedented exchange of a written nomination and rejection should not be resolved through another procedural shortcut. Respecting the Constitution, the law and established precedent is the surest way to end the conflict between the president and chief justice and fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Blue House has asked Jo to quickly nominate one of the remaining candidates recommended by the existing Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee. But that approach could create another procedural controversy.

The Court Organization Act requires a recommendation committee to be formed whenever the chief justice nominates a Supreme Court justice. Article 41-8 stipulates that the committee is deemed dissolved once it recommends candidates. Moreover, after one candidate has already been formally nominated, it is difficult to justify treating the three remaining recommended candidates as a continuing pool from which Jo must simply select another.

There is precedent. When Supreme Court nominee Kim Byung-hwa withdrew in 2012, a new recommendation committee was formed, and the selection process began again from the recommendation stage. Likewise, the solution most faithful to law and precedent is to form a new committee and solicit candidates again.

The Constitution divides appointment powers by requiring the chief justice to nominate Supreme Court justices, the National Assembly to approve them and the president to appoint them. If the president rejects a nominee and the ruling party then pressures the chief justice to select a particular alternative, the chief justice’s constitutional nomination authority risks becoming meaningless.

For the same reason, it is inappropriate for the ruling party to demand Jo appear before the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee while pressing him to nominate one of the remaining candidates.

Jo and the Supreme Court must also seek a way out. They should promptly follow legally sound procedures, including forming a new recommendation committee, while communicating and consulting with the Blue House.

With the seat left vacant by former Justice Noh Tae-ak already unfilled for an extended period, neither the Blue House nor the Supreme Court should allow a dispute over authority to prolong the vacancy any further.