Ruling party sees political gain in clash with chief justice

The ruling Democratic Party (DP) closed ranks Wednesday, a day after Chief Justice Jo Hee-de rejected the presidential office’s request to renominate a candidate to the Supreme Court.

At a Supreme Council meeting and elsewhere, DP leaders unleashed criticism of Jo. Party leader Kim Min-seok called his refusal “unconstitutional, illegal and insurrectionary,” while floor leader Han Byung-do said it amounted to “ignoring a president elected by the people and picking a fight with the public.” Other party figures used expressions such as “Mr. Jo Hee-de,” “Jo Hee-de’s rebellion” and “judicial coup.”

The confrontation appears to have energized a ruling party weighed down by President Lee Jae Myung’s declining approval ratings, personnel controversies surrounding his Cabinet reshuffle and internal disputes over prosecutorial reform. Some DP lawmakers reportedly said they were relieved that the Jo controversy had overshadowed the failed nomination of Kim Seung-won as justice minister, or that while Jo’s actions were objectionable, they were helping unite the party.

It is disappointing that the DP appears more interested in changing the political narrative than finding answers to public anger over the administration’s personnel failures. Has it forgotten the unprecedented prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court and the public anxiety it has caused?

Jo issued an additional statement Wednesday explaining his response to the president’s renomination request. He said the official document did not clearly state the reasons for seeking another nominee and that there had been no procedural defect in the original nomination process. With the presidential office and DP confronting the chief justice head-on, the standoff is likely to continue. The DP also protested outside the Supreme Court, widening the confrontation.

But the ruling party should not try to resolve this turmoil through its parliamentary strength. The DP argues that the appointment authority of the popularly elected president takes precedence over the chief justice’s nomination authority. That is a dangerous argument.

In a democracy, the legitimacy of power rests not only on elections but also on the Constitution, the rule of law and procedural legitimacy. The separation of powers exists precisely to prevent elected authority from becoming unchecked through a system of checks and balances.

That principle is reflected in Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution: “The Justices of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Justice and with the consent of the National Assembly.”

Rather than staging competing demonstrations for political effect, the ruling and opposition parties should seek a reasonable, mature solution to the prolonged Supreme Court vacancy.