Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has broken long-standing tradition by nominating a Supreme Court candidate through a written request rather than in person [1].
This departure from protocol signals a deepening rift between the judiciary and the executive branch over the selection of high-court judges. The move suggests a breakdown in the consultative process typically used to ensure stability within the nation's highest court.
The dispute centers on the appointment of former Justice Noh Tae-ak. According to reports, the Chief Justice and the Blue House were unable to narrow their differences regarding the selection of this successor [1]. This deadlock has contributed to a vacancy on the Supreme Court that has persisted for approximately six months [1].
Court officials said that the written nomination was a last resort. Noh Kyung-pil, the Minister of Court Administration, said that the process usually involves a meeting and agreement between the two parties before a written request is sent.
"Because they did not give us the opportunity to meet and agree, the only remaining method was this one," Noh said [1].
The tradition of face-to-face consultation is intended to prevent public friction and ensure that nominees are acceptable to both the judicial leadership and the presidency. By bypassing this step, the judiciary has highlighted its frustration with the executive's handling of the appointment process.
The vacancy has left the court operating with a reduced bench, a situation that can delay critical rulings and increase the workload for remaining justices. The written nomination forces the Blue House to address the appointment without the buffer of a prior private agreement [1].
“The only remaining method was this one”
The shift to a written nomination reflects a significant tension between the South Korean judiciary and the executive branch. By abandoning the customary consultative process, the Supreme Court is publicly signaling that the Blue House has been unresponsive or obstructive in filling judicial vacancies. This friction may lead to further delays in high-court appointments and could potentially impact the perceived independence of the judiciary if the executive continues to resist the Chief Justice's selections.
