Handeoksu Judge Name vs Sir
- Teh Constitutional Court is continuing its deliberations on the constitutionality of the prime minister's appointment of a constitutional judge.
- Legal sources indicate the court also convened a judge's review and discussed the application for disposition.
- The scheduled retirement of two judges,appointed during the Moon Jae-in administration,is set for the 18th.
Constitutional Court weighs Legality of Prime Minister Appointment
Table of Contents
- Constitutional Court weighs Legality of Prime Minister Appointment
- Constitutional Court Weighs Legality of Prime Minister Appointment: A Q&A
- What is the Constitutional Court currently deliberating?
- What’s the context behind this Constitutional Court case?
- Why is this case time-sensitive?
- Who is challenging the appointment and why?
- What are the main arguments for and against the appeal?
- What decision can the Constitutional Court make?
- What is Attorney Kim Jung-hwan’s specific argument?
- What’s the impact of a ruling suspending the nomination?
- What arguments are the defendants making?
- Can you summarize the key points of the case in a table?
Teh Constitutional Court is continuing its deliberations on the constitutionality of the prime minister’s appointment of a constitutional judge.
Legal sources indicate the court also convened a judge’s review and discussed the application for disposition. This review is expected to continue into the afternoon.
The scheduled retirement of two judges,appointed during the Moon Jae-in administration,is set for the 18th. A decision on the matter must be reached before this date, or else, the judges may retire without a ruling.
Previously, Lee Wan-gyu, chief of law and deputy chief of the seoul High Court, was nominated as a candidate for a new constitutional judge, sparking debate within legal circles regarding the president’s authority in such appointments.
The Constitutional Court is considering a case filed by attorney Kim Jung-hwan, along with related disposal requests. Kim’s legal challenge is supported by various organizations and individuals, including lawyers’ groups advocating for a democratic society.
One argument presented to the court asserts that the constitutional appeal and disposition shoudl be dismissed. This argument contends that the proclamation of a candidate merely reflects an intention and should not be subject to constitutional appeal. It further emphasizes the president’s authority to appoint judges.
Attorney Kim Jung-hwan submitted a supplemental rebuttal to the Constitutional Court this morning. Kim stated, “The appointment in this case concerns the specifics of the appointment (who will appoint them), and it represents an exercise of public power inextricably linked to the appointment itself.”
Another argument suggests that the nomination of two candidates was intended to resolve a prolonged period of constitutional dysfunction. Kim criticized this argument as “an incredible statement,” arguing that “he is acting as a true function paralysis in the name of solving the functional paralysis of the constitution.”
The Constitutional Court is expediting its discussion of the matter, recognizing the gravity of the issue. A ruling to grant the disposal requires the support of at least five judges. If granted, the effect of the nomination would be suspended.
yonhap contributed to this report.
Constitutional Court Weighs Legality of Prime Minister Appointment: A Q&A
What is the Constitutional Court currently deliberating?
The Constitutional Court is currently deliberating on the constitutionality of the prime minister’s appointment of a constitutional judge. The court is reviewing the appointment process and examining its legal basis.
What’s the context behind this Constitutional Court case?
The primary issue involves a challenge to the prime minister’s appointment of a constitutional judge. This case stems from the nomination of lee Wan-gyu, chief of law and deputy chief of the Seoul High Court, as a candidate for a new constitutional judge. Attorney Kim Jung-hwan filed the case, supported by various groups, questioning the legality of the appointment process.
Why is this case time-sensitive?
The time sensitivity arises from the scheduled retirement of two judges, appointed during the Moon Jae-in governance, set for the 18th. If a decision isn’t reached before this date, the retiring judges may leave without a ruling on the matter.
Who is challenging the appointment and why?
Attorney Kim Jung-hwan is challenging the appointment. His challenge, supported by legal groups, questions the president’s authority in making such appointments. His argument is that the appointment process itself violates constitutional principles and that the nomination is an exercise of public power.
What are the main arguments for and against the appeal?
Arguments Presented:
- One argument suggests dismissing the appeal, asserting that the candidate proclamation only reflects an intention and should not be subject to a constitutional appeal. This argument emphasizes the president’s authority.
- Attorney Kim Jung-hwan argues the appointment process itself is an exercise of public power.
- An argument suggests the nomination was intended to fix constitutional problems. Kim argues that this is a problem.
What decision can the Constitutional Court make?
The Constitutional Court can decide on whether to grant the disposal of the appointment. This requires the support of at least five judges. If granted, the effect of the nomination would be suspended.
What is Attorney Kim Jung-hwan’s specific argument?
Attorney Kim Jung-hwan argues that the specifics of the appointment, including the selection process, represent an exercise of public power. he submitted a supplemental rebuttal to the court, emphasizing that the appointment is inextricably linked to the exercise of public power.
What’s the impact of a ruling suspending the nomination?
If the Constitutional Court grants the disposal, and therefore suspends the nomination, it would halt the appointment process. this means Lee Wan-gyu, or whomever the subject of the nomination is, would not be able to become a judge.
What arguments are the defendants making?
One of the arguments being made in defense of the nomination is that the nomination was done to solve constitutional dysfunction, that has persisted. Attorney Kim Jung-hwan criticized this line of reasoning.
Can you summarize the key points of the case in a table?
here’s a summary of the key aspects of the Constitutional Court’s deliberations:
| Issue | Details |
|---|---|
| Subject of Deliberation | constitutionality of the Prime Minister’s appointment of a constitutional judge. |
| Key Parties | Attorney Kim Jung-hwan (Challenger), Constitutional Court Judges, Nominee (lee Wan-gyu) |
| Core Argument | Kim argues the appointment process, specifically, is unconstitutional. |
| Supporting Arguments | Attorney Kim argues the appointment is an exercise of public power. Others attempt to defend the appointment by suggesting a need to fix constitutional issues. |
| Court’s ruling | The court will decide whether to grant disposal of the appointment, which would suspend the nomination. |
| Deadline | Must be decided by the 18th to prevent the retirement of judges without a ruling. |