The Blue House decides not to file a constitutional competence dispute over Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae’s refusal to re-recommend the nomination.
We take a look at the background behind the Blue House’s review of a constitutional competence dispute in the controversy over the re-recommendation of Supreme Court justice candidates. Check the prolonged vacancy and the political burden amid the conflict of interpretation with the Chief Justice.
The Blue House has decided not to consider filing a constitutional dispute petition with the Constitutional Court regarding Chief Justice Jo Heede's refusal to rerecommend nominees for Supreme Court justices.
The Blue House countered that the president's power of appointment could be rendered ineffective when the Chief Justice raised procedural flaws in the recommendation process and then restated his position. It also appears to have determined that even if it pursued legal action, the vacancies on the Supreme Court could last longer, and the burden could grow depending on the outcome.
This issue stemmed from differences in interpretation between the presidential office and the Chief Justice over the process of appointing Supreme Court justices. The Blue House argued that there was insufficient basis for the method of individually contacting candidates to ask whether they wished to resign, while Chief Justice Jo countered that the reasons for the request to rerecommend were not clearly stated in the official document. As a result, there are predictions that the vacancy situation for Supreme Court justices could become prolonged.