Lee's approval rating sinks as friction with top court flares

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung faces mounting political pressure as tensions escalate between his administration and the country’s Supreme Court over recent judicial appointments. The conflict centers on the rejection of two Supreme Court justice nominees by the presidential office, sparking a sharp disagreement with Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. This dispute marks another chapter in the broader ideological battle between South Korea’s liberal-led government and the conservative-leaning judiciary. The disagreement emerged after the presidential office refused to approve two Supreme Court judges proposed by the court earlier this week. The administration criticized the selections as “unilateral” and lacking consultation, accusing the judiciary of overstepping its authority. In response, the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance, asserting that the appointment process falls under its constitutional mandate. This clash reflects deepening divisions between the executive and judicial branches, with both sides claiming legitimacy in their positions. President Lee’s approval rating has suffered significantly due to these developments. According to Realmeter’s latest opinion polls, his approval rate dropped below the 40% threshold for the first time since he took office in June 2025. His disapproval rating climbed to 58.7%, marking a notable shift in public sentiment. The decline coincides with the controversy surrounding the judicial appointments, which has become a focal point of criticism against the administration. Pollsters attributed part of the drop to the perception that the presidential office is undermining judicial independence by rejecting the court’s choices. At the heart of the dispute is the legal and political legacy of President Lee, whose candidacy was challenged in early 2025 over allegations of election fraud. A Supreme Court ruling initially threatened to strip him of his eligibility to run, but the case was later remanded to a lower court. Despite this, the court’s involvement in his campaign has left a lasting impact, with critics accusing Chief Justice Jo of influencing the outcome of the 2025 presidential election. These accusations have fueled resentment among supporters of Lee, further complicating his relationship with the judiciary. The legislative branch has also played a role in escalating tensions. Last year, the National Assembly, controlled by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, passed a law expanding the Supreme Court’s membership and granting the president greater influence over judicial appointments. Under this law, President Lee has the authority to appoint 22 of the 26 justices on the court during his term. The recent rejection of two nominees represents the first major test of this policy, highlighting the potential for continued conflict between the executive and judicial branches. Efforts by the ruling party to address the situation have included attempts to convene parliamentary hearings with Chief Justice Jo. However, Jo has consistently refused to attend, citing personal reasons. On Monday, the National Assembly canceled a planned hearing following news that Jo had recently lost his father. This development underscores the personal and institutional challenges facing both sides in the ongoing standoff. Beyond the immediate political fallout, the dispute has drawn attention to other pressing issues affecting South Korea. The housing affordability crisis, concerns over public safety following the discovery of falsified missing-person cases on Jeju Island, and internal factionalism within the ruling party have contributed to a climate of uncertainty. These factors have intensified public scrutiny of President Lee’s leadership, compounding the effects of the judicial controversy. As the situation unfolds, the future of South Korea’s judicial system, and the balance of power between the branches of government, remains uncertain. With the president and chief justice locked in a bitter rivalry, the nation watches closely to see how this conflict will shape the course of governance in the coming months.