Justice appointments settled, time to focus on governance
Published: 01 Jan. 2025, 20:00
With acting President Choi Sang-mok’s appointment of two Constitutional Court justices on Tuesday, the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol has finally gained momentum. Although Choi withheld the appointment of one opposition-recommended candidate, his decision is widely regarded as a pragmatic choice given the political realities. The Constitutional Court had previously ruled on the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in March 2017 with an eight-justice bench. Therefore, any decision the court makes in this case is unlikely to face significant challenges in terms of public acceptance.
Some ruling party figures have criticized Choi’s decision, accusing him of overstepping his authority. However, Choi simultaneously exercised his veto power over two special prosecutor bills — one concerning the alleged insurrection and another targeting first lady Kim Keon Hee. If Choi lacked the authority to appoint Constitutional Court justices, then logically, he should not have the authority to veto legislation either. Supporting his veto while condemning the appointments is inconsistent.
Ruling party figures attacking Choi would do well to listen to the broader public sentiment instead of relying solely on internal counsel. A recent survey conducted by JoongAng Ilbo and Embrain Public revealed that 67 percent of respondents support President Yoon’s impeachment, far surpassing the 28 percent who oppose it. While individuals are free to stand by Yoon out of personal loyalty, steering a political party toward direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of voters is recklessly shortsighted, especially with future elections on the horizon.
Now that the contentious issue of appointing Constitutional Court justices has been resolved, it is time for the government and lawmakers to focus on stabilizing governance. The impeachment trial should be left to the Constitutional Court, while urgent national priorities demand immediate attention. The Democratic Party, in particular, must refrain from habitual impeachment motions and assume a responsible approach to governance.
As for the special prosecutor bills on insurrection and the first lady, a compromise between the ruling and opposition parties is the only viable path forward. The ruling party has raised valid concerns about potential political bias if the opposition is granted exclusive authority to nominate the special prosecutor. A neutral alternative — such as allowing nominations by the Chief Justice or the Korean Bar Association — would be more appropriate. Additionally, the scope of investigations is excessively broad. Such a sweeping mandate could summon thousands of people for investigation, a point of contention raised by the ruling party that is not entirely unfounded. The Democratic Party must narrow the scope of these investigations to a more realistic scale. The ruling party, on its part, should draft a revised special prosecutor proposal free of contentious provisions and work toward a negotiated solution.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
Some ruling party figures have criticized Choi’s decision, accusing him of overstepping his authority. However, Choi simultaneously exercised his veto power over two special prosecutor bills — one concerning the alleged insurrection and another targeting first lady Kim Keon Hee. If Choi lacked the authority to appoint Constitutional Court justices, then logically, he should not have the authority to veto legislation either. Supporting his veto while condemning the appointments is inconsistent.
Ruling party figures attacking Choi would do well to listen to the broader public sentiment instead of relying solely on internal counsel. A recent survey conducted by JoongAng Ilbo and Embrain Public revealed that 67 percent of respondents support President Yoon’s impeachment, far surpassing the 28 percent who oppose it. While individuals are free to stand by Yoon out of personal loyalty, steering a political party toward direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of voters is recklessly shortsighted, especially with future elections on the horizon.
Now that the contentious issue of appointing Constitutional Court justices has been resolved, it is time for the government and lawmakers to focus on stabilizing governance. The impeachment trial should be left to the Constitutional Court, while urgent national priorities demand immediate attention. The Democratic Party, in particular, must refrain from habitual impeachment motions and assume a responsible approach to governance.
As for the special prosecutor bills on insurrection and the first lady, a compromise between the ruling and opposition parties is the only viable path forward. The ruling party has raised valid concerns about potential political bias if the opposition is granted exclusive authority to nominate the special prosecutor. A neutral alternative — such as allowing nominations by the Chief Justice or the Korean Bar Association — would be more appropriate. Additionally, the scope of investigations is excessively broad. Such a sweeping mandate could summon thousands of people for investigation, a point of contention raised by the ruling party that is not entirely unfounded. The Democratic Party must narrow the scope of these investigations to a more realistic scale. The ruling party, on its part, should draft a revised special prosecutor proposal free of contentious provisions and work toward a negotiated solution.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)