Supreme Court standoff needs compromise

The dispute over appointing a new Supreme Court justice has become a direct clash between the president’s power of appointment and the chief justice’s power of recommendation. President Lee Jae Myung has declined to accept the candidate recommended by Chief Justice Jo Hee-de and requested another candidate.

At a National Assembly audit Tuesday, Jo rejected the request. “Just as the chief justice cannot intervene in the National Assembly’s consent procedure or the president’s appointment process, neither the National Assembly nor the president can interfere in the chief justice’s recommendation,” he said.

Without a breakthrough, the appointment could be delayed indefinitely. A prolonged vacancy would hurt the public, but it is troubling to see the president and chief justice refuse to yield. Is compromise really so difficult? The appointment process has followed conventions for decades. If both sides consider why those practices endured, a solution should be possible.

There can be no solution if the Blue House continues insisting on a particular candidate. It reportedly favors a judge associated with a progressive judges’ group, while Jo appears determined not to recommend that person.

Jo, however, should show willingness to communicate and minimize disruption to the judiciary. The Blue House could withdraw its request for a new recommendation and allow the National Assembly to decide whether to consent to the nominee already submitted. Another proposal is for the recommended candidates to withdraw together, allowing the process to restart with a recommendation committee.

It is unfortunate that no elder statesman has stepped forward to mediate this confrontation.

The conflict stems from differing interpretations of the Constitution. The president and chief justice disagree over the scope of their respective powers, while legal scholars are also divided. Because presidential and chief justice terms do not coincide, similar conflicts could recur after changes of government.

If mediation and compromise fail, the parties should consider seeking a Constitutional Court ruling through an adjudication to clarify the boundaries between state institutions.

The Constitutional Court has jurisdiction when state institutions disagree over the existence or scope of powers granted by the Constitution or law. A ruling could provide a standard rather than leaving appointments vulnerable to the same deadlock.

Neither side benefits from turning an appointment into a test of institutional power. Both have roles deserving respect, but those powers exist to keep the judiciary functioning, not to produce paralysis.

Finding a solution within constitutional bounds would be preferable to passing the costs of a judicial vacancy on to the public.