[Editorial] If Even the Judiciary Oscillates According to Social Atmospheres

In the wake of nominating a new justice of the Supreme Court, two respectable chief justices expressed their willingness to resign. This is a significant loss to the judiciary. Amid such a flow of resignations, stories of “at stake is the judiciary’s position as a judicious arbitrator” are prevalent, which seems to indicate an increasing suspicion of the role of judiciary.

The judiciary inevitably keeps up with the changing environment. However, its recent decisions have called for the voice of worry; as judges’ ideologies receive the spotlight, questions regarding their consciences have taken a back seat. Under such circumstances, radical rulings are coming one after another, and judges are more concerned about political power and the environment surrounding them. Even worse, some express worry that young judges might rule for the sake of self-advertisement, stimulated by civic groups’ recent public nomination activities for a new justice of the Supreme Court

The advice that “in order to win a trial, you should hire certain lawyers having membership of particular groups,” and “lawyers with connections to powerful political figures are dominating all deals here” are not rarely heard around the court. Indisputably, this is not a mere matter that we can overlook.

Now is the time for judiciary to come up with more proper measures of nominating the justice of the Supreme Court by learning from lessons surfacing in the recent process of the nomination and fully accepting public opinions. It also goes without saying that, rather than those who swing in extreme directions to either the conservative or the radical, those with professional knowledge and magnanimous generosity should be judicial figures to realize the justice of law.

Only when we do so can we mollify any suspicion regarding a recent personnel change in the judiciary, in which 13 out of 14 justices of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, were taken over by new figures only within the current government, which is sparking skepticism saying, “The Supreme Court is now filled with those who are well with the president.” In regard to this, now, nominations are made by recommendation either by themselves or others, in accordance with the level of their contribution to the current government. This is a very shameful reality.

All judges must keep it in mind that the judiciary’s authority and glory will be preserved only when they make rules from their own deep consciences, professionalism, and sobriety.