Parties clash over Chief Justice Jo's written nomination of justices

The political fallout from Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae's decision to submit written nominations for two new Supreme Court justices continued to ripple through the National Assembly on Thursday, with the ruling Democratic Party of Korea escalating its attacks on Jo and vowing to review reforms to the justice appointment process, while opposition parties fired back, accusing the Democrats of undermining the separation of powers.

Democratic Party floor leader Han Byung-do, speaking at a policy coordination meeting at the National Assembly on Wednesday, said the core issue was not the nomination itself but "the process and manner in which it was pushed through — delayed for 209 days without any explanation and then forced ahead without a single word of consultation with the person holding the appointment authority." He added that Jo's actions appeared to be driven by "political calculation rather than law and principle."

Han said the appointment of Supreme Court justices under Article 104 of the Constitution "is a joint undertaking of the three branches of government, completed through the chief justice's nomination, the National Assembly's consent, and the president's appointment." He said the Democratic Party would "hold Chief Justice Jo accountable to the end" and would "carefully examine the institutional safeguards needed to ensure that the justice appointment process is not left to the arbitrary judgment of a single chief justice."

The Rebuilding Korea Party also joined the offensive against Jo. Supreme council member Kim Hyeong-yeon said at a supreme council meeting that day that Court Administration Office chief No Gyeong-pil had told the National Assembly on Wednesday that "each institution simply needs to exercise its own authority" — a response Kim called "truly arrogant." "This is not the rule of law," Kim said. "It is the judiciary ruling by its own convenience."

Opposition parties pushed back, calling on the ruling party to stop "taming the judiciary." People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok, directing his remarks at newly elected Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok, said Kim's first statement upon taking office was a call to impeach the chief justice, which "clearly shows why President Lee Jae-myung went to such extraordinary lengths to install Kim as party leader." Jang said that if Chief Justice Jo had submitted the nominations without prior coordination with the presidential office, "that is precisely what judicial independence looks like."

On Wednesday, Kim had told the Democratic Party's first supreme council meeting under his leadership that Chief Justice Jo "should step down" as "the worst chief justice since liberation." In response, Jang added that if Jo and the judiciary had decided to defend judicial independence on their own, "the first thing they should do is resume President Lee's trial."

Reform Party leader Lee Jun-seok said the ruling camp's argument — that Jo had been discourteous by submitting the nominations in writing without meeting the president, and that he "should have consulted with the president" — ignored a basic reality. "What criminal defendant would dare negotiate over which Supreme Court justice will preside over their case?" Lee said. He noted that the president serves a five-year term while Supreme Court justices serve six years, meaning the justices now being appointed could end up presiding over the case of the very president who appointed them. "No one can be a judge in their own case," he said.

Lee said that "if the person subject to oversight gets to choose who oversees them, there is no point in separating the powers in the first place." He said the principle that "you do not touch the trial you will face" was older than any convention the ruling party could cite.

Meanwhile, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee voted at a plenary session on Wednesday, led by the ruling Democratic Party, to summon Chief Justice Jo to appear before the panel. All People Power Party lawmakers voted against the motion.

Committee chair Seo Yeong-gyo of the Democratic Party said the hearing was intended to question Jo about "what happened during the long-delayed nomination process for the vacant Supreme Court seats" and about the reasons the cases involving Kim Keon Hee, Han Duck-soo and Lee Sang-min were referred to the Supreme Court's full bench.

Kim Seung-won, the committee's Democratic Party floor manager, told reporters after the plenary session that establishing the facts came first when asked whether the Democratic Party or the committee planned to pursue impeachment of Chief Justice Jo. He added that if it emerged that pressure had been applied on the nominees to resign, or that consent to resign had been sought in order to form a new recommendation committee, "we cannot overlook that."

Asked whether the committee would vote to issue a compulsory appearance order if Jo refused to attend, Kim said that had "not yet been decided." Under current law, a standing committee may issue a compulsory appearance order by vote against a witness who fails to appear without justifiable cause despite a National Assembly request, and a witness who refuses such an order may be referred for criminal charges.