Chief Justice Cho must nominate justices who challenge him

The article sharply criticizes Chief Justice Cho Hee-tae for his alleged "dereliction of duty" in failing to nominate a successor for a retired Supreme Court justice for three months. This inaction, coupled with the ongoing process to select a replacement for another justice retiring in September, is described as unprecedented and a sign of the judiciary's declining public trust.

“

The Supreme Court's credibility has not yet recovered.

Public trust in South Korea's judiciary has plummeted, with recent surveys placing it at the bottom among national institutions. The article attributes this decline partly to a controversial Supreme Court ruling on May 1st, which the author deems "reckless and anti-constitutional." This ruling, and the perceived lack of dissent among most justices, has further damaged the court's credibility.

The author challenges the notion that the Chief Justice's sole power to nominate justices ensures judicial independence. Citing international models from the US, Germany, and France, the article argues that democratic legitimacy is better served when executive and legislative branches have direct input, preventing the judiciary from becoming insular. True judicial independence, it contends, involves safeguarding against both external interference and internal "autocracy."

“

The fact that only two out of the 12 justices on the May 1st en banc ruling opposed this absurd ruling was despairing to the public.

Given the current crisis of confidence, the article urges Chief Justice Cho to nominate candidates who represent a departure from his own judicial philosophy. Specifically, it calls for nominees who can "most fiercely challenge" his views and "most critically scrutinize" the controversial May 1st ruling during their confirmation hearings. This approach, the author suggests, is the only path to restoring the Supreme Court's damaged reputation and ensuring it reflects the will of the people rather than the will of the Chief Justice.

“

The Chief Justice should nominate candidates who are furthest from himself, who can most directly confront him, and who can most critically criticize the May 1st en banc ruling during their confirmation hearing.