Seoul:The ongoing dispute between the Blue House and Chief Justice Jo Hee-de over the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice is intensifying, risking a deeper institutional conflict.

According to Yonhap News Agency, Chief Justice Jo Hee-de declined the Blue House's request to recommend a different candidate for the Supreme Court, citing a lack of constitutional basis and specific reasons for the request. The Blue House argued that Jo's stance puts his nomination authority above the president's appointment power, deeming it unconstitutional.

The conflict arose as President Lee Jae Myung and Jo clashed over the successor to former Justice Noh Tae-ak, with accusations of encroaching on each other's constitutional powers. This confrontation followed a meeting between Lee and Jo at a ceremony for newly appointed Justice Kim Sung-soo.

Both parties are held accountable for the deadlock. Jo put forward the nomination of Son Bong-kie without completing final discussions with the Blue House. In response, the presidential office dismissed Son's nomination and urged Jo to select a candidate from a previously recommended list. This move limited the chief justice's authority.

The Blue House's request for a new nominee should have allowed for forming a new recommendation committee. Jo's rejection of this request has further limited opportunities for compromise. Jo emphasized the importance of procedural adherence, noting that presidential acts require countersignatures from the prime minister and relevant Cabinet members. The Blue House's document lacked detailed reasons and constitutional support, necessitating a clearer explanation from the Blue House.

Resolving procedural issues alone will not suffice to settle the appointment. The underlying issue appears to be a power struggle, with the president favoring a specific candidate and the chief justice resisting such pressure. Without established procedures for renomination, differing legal interpretations might extend the constitutional dispute and prolong the Supreme Court vacancy. Ruling party lawmakers have criticized the situation as a "judicial coup" and threatened to summon Jo to the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, raising concerns over potential political interference in the judiciary.

A potential resolution could involve the Blue House ceasing to insist on appointing a specific individual from the existing shortlist. Both sides should aim for a practical resolution, possibly through a new recommendation process or additional consultations within the constitutional framework and established practices.