---
title: "South Korean lawyer groups urge Blue House to withdraw justice re-nomination request"
description: "Groups say the demand to the chief justice violates the constitution and undermines separation of powers"
author: "rews desk"
published: 2026-09-30T03:51:07.808Z
modified: 2026-09-30T15:15:08Z
url: https://rews.cc/a/south-korean-lawyer-groups-urge-blue-house-to-withdraw-justi-392291
language: en
tags: ["politics", "law", "trump", "supreme-court", "congress", "world"]
publisher: "Rews (https://rews.cc)"
---

# South Korean lawyer groups urge Blue House to withdraw justice re-nomination request

*Groups say the demand to the chief justice violates the constitution and undermines separation of powers*

By rews desk · September 30, 2026 · https://rews.cc/a/south-korean-lawyer-groups-urge-blue-house-to-withdraw-justi-392291

## In brief

- Three lawyer groups held a press conference outside the Supreme Court in Seoul on Wednesday
- They called the Blue House re-nomination demand a constitution-destroying breach of separation of powers
- Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae nominated judge Son Bong-gi in writing on Aug. 18 to succeed Roh Tae-ak
- The Blue House withheld the consent motion from parliament on Aug. 28, citing lack of prior consultation
- Cho effectively rejected the demand on Sept. 22; the standoff continues

Three South Korean lawyers’ associations on Wednesday called on the presidential office to withdraw its demand that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae submit a new nomination for a Supreme Court justice, saying the request violates the constitution and the law.

The Lawyers for the Constitution group, People Making Good Laws and the Korean Bar Association for Human Rights and Unification on the Korean Peninsula held a press conference outside the Supreme Court in Seoul’s Seocho district, according to the Chosun Ilbo.

The groups said refusing to send the appointment consent motion to the National Assembly and pressuring the chief justice over the procedure and format of the nomination was “a constitution-destroying act that hollows out the constitutional spirit of separation of powers at its roots.”

They said the chief justice’s power to nominate Supreme Court justices is an exclusive authority granted by the constitution to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, and that whether a nomination is made in person or in writing has no bearing on its validity or legitimacy.

The groups also said there is no provision in the constitution or any law requiring the chief justice to consult the president in advance or to nominate in person, and no statutory basis at all for recognising a re-nomination demand.

They argued the Blue House demand also blocks parliament’s right of consent. If there are questions about a nominee’s qualifications and integrity, they said, those should be examined publicly through the National Assembly’s consent process, and allowing the president to select candidates arbitrarily at the nomination stage destroys the constitution’s path of checks and balances.

Cho nominated Son Bong-gi, a chief judge at the Daegu District Court, in writing to President Lee Jae-myung on Aug. 18 to succeed retired justice Roh Tae-ak. Ten days later, on Aug. 28, the presidential office declined to submit the appointment consent motion to the National Assembly, saying the written nomination had been made without substantive consultation between the president and the chief justice, and asked Cho to submit a new nomination.

On Sept. 22, 25 days after the request, Cho effectively rejected it, saying the Aug. 28 re-nomination request document contained no specific reasons or constitutional grounds for the demand. The following day he reiterated that claims of procedural flaws in the nomination process were difficult to accept based on the constitution and the law.

The standoff between the presidential office and the Supreme Court over the re-nomination remains unresolved, with the two institutions continuing to clash publicly, the Chosun Ilbo reported.