If this is the case, it would be better not to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

Four current judges have been recommended as possible successors to retiring Judge Hee-kuk Lee, all of whom are current judges. Prosecutor Lee Ja-myeong, who previously recommended four candidates in January, will present his choice to President Yoon Suk-yeol and seek approval from the National Assembly. This would result in a Supreme Court with 13 current judges and one law professor.

This configuration, however, contradicts the purpose of the recently passed "Judicial Appointment Law" (amendment to the Court Organization Act) that was pushed through by the Democratic Party last February. The Democratic Party aims to increase the number of Supreme Court judges to 26 by 2030, with "서오남" (a Seoul University law graduate in his 50s and a high-ranking male judge) as a symbol.

The current trend of selecting judges primarily from high-ranking backgrounds is problematic, as it hinders the creation of a diverse Supreme Court that reflects various perspectives such as gender, age, and professional background, and thus undermines the Court's impartiality and public trust. While three out of eight recommended female judges were recommended, the lack of substantial diversity raises concerns.

The recommendations lack strong candidates who can challenge outdated court decisions and stand up to the conservative legal establishment. Unlike the previous two Democratic administrations, which appointed two women (Kim Young-ran and Chun Suan) as Supreme Court judges, the current administration has appointed judges with predominantly conservative views.

For example, Judge Park Shi-hwan, a law professor, and Judge Hong-hoon Lee, a high-ranking judge with a strong social conscience, were appointed. This trend is reminiscent of the "Dove Five" appointed during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, who brought a fresh perspective to the Supreme Court. These judges challenged illegal practices by prosecutors, prevented the coercive religious education of Missionary School, and restored environmental rights, among other progressive decisions.

In comparison, the current Supreme Court seems to lack the same level of diversity and social conscience. If the Supreme Court continues to be populated by judges selected primarily from high-ranking backgrounds, it may become even more detached from the public. The Democratic Party should reconsider its decision to simply increase the number of judges without addressing the recommendation process.

The current system is too heavily influenced by the Chief Justice's will, with six members of the selection committee having direct influence from the Chief Justice. This lack of democratic accountability is concerning. Additionally, the law profession itself bears responsibility for the lack of representation from various sectors in the judicial appointments.

Over 87 judicial candidates were vetted, but only 27 current judges and one law professor from a law school's graduate program were deemed suitable. The opinions of many lawyers were not taken into account during the vetting process. The National Assembly's investigative hearings exposed these issues, but there is little time to prepare for challenges ahead.