The National Assembly’s, i.e. the governing party’s, rejection Thursday of an opposition-recommended nominee for the Constitutional Court justice leaves bad taste in more than a few ways.
First of all, the veto, the first ever since the highest tribunal made its debut 24 years ago, will prolong the ``unconstitutional” situation of the Constitutional Court by crippling its normal operation for at least another six months. Some sensitive social issues, such as adultery and abortion awaiting decisions on constitutionality, will remain in limbo until then.
Second, by voting down a liberal nominee, the Saenuri Party opted to curry favor with conservative voters ahead of the parliamentary polls rather than ensuring the smooth operation of the Assembly. The opposition’s parliamentary boycott is delaying the debate of bread-and-butter issues.
Third, and most regrettably, most of the ruling party lawmakers voted along the party line ― for wrong reasons.
The Saenuri legislators say Cho Yong-whan has two major problems in sitting on the highest judicial institution. One is moral and the other is ideological. We can agree with the former but not with the latter. Had the ruling party lawmakers rejected him for falsifying residence registration on four occasions for the sake of property speculation or children’s education, few would have complained about such a decision.
But most Saenuri lawmakers didn’t even comment on the legal violation probably because almost all officials nominated by President Lee Myung-bak to key posts have had same faults. Instead, they took issue with Cho’s refusal to express ``conviction” about North Korea’s torpedoing of the South Korean battleship Cheonan in March 2010. Saenuri and other conservative party lawmakers say a person who doesn’t believe in the government’s announcement should not be a justice.
However, a Seoul National University survey conducted last year showed only one third of Koreans completely believe Seoul’s conclusion with the remaining 65 percent or so turning out to be incredulous, partially in doubt. Are all these skeptics pro-North Korean elements, then? Cho says North Korea seems to have committed the atrocity, but couldn’t be 100 percent convinced as he was not in the evidence-gathering process. A more reasonable and less ideological society would commend, not denounce, such strict guide of evidence.
The right-wing politicians might still say top judicial officials cannot be treated on equal terms as commoners, as they must be the guardians of ``liberal democracy and market capitalism.” Few can deny the ideological confrontation facing this nation, but that should no longer mar the nation’s collective intellect by painting everything ― and everyone ― either red or blue.
Former Constitutional Court Justice Lee Gong-hyeon made the point concerning this issue when he said, ``The most important thing in constitutional suits is the clash of different views and values and it is through such a process from which a conclusion secures its validity. A society dominated by unilateral logics and arguments is the No. 1 target we should guard against.”
The opposition party should re-recommend morally upright but ideologically unrestrained nominee, and the ruling party must approve him or her.