Source: Seoul Shinmun · 정치

What happened

According to Seoul Shinmun, Democratic Party leader Kim Min-seok on Sept. 23 escalated the fight over Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae’s refusal to resubmit Supreme Court justice nominations. Kim called the renomination refusal “essentially neglect that ignores the people” and promised to use the National Assembly’s full authority to investigate, summon, reprimand, pursue legal accountability, and demand corrections.

At a Supreme Council meeting, Kim labeled Jo’s conduct “unconstitutional, illegal, and insurrectionist” and vowed to “reprimand and correct” him — framing the fight as a breach of public duty, not a routine executive–judiciary spat.

The breakdown

Kim outlined a broad legislative counteroffensive. “We will use every power the National Assembly has to investigate, summon, reprimand, hold legally accountable, and correct,” he said. He also argued the episode would become “the trigger for judicial reform.”

Kim also cited Kim Byung-joo, a lawmaker staging a solo protest outside the Supreme Court for dozens of days, claiming daily checks showed Jo “does not even keep regular office hours.” He tied that to office-expense rules, calling the dispute a “deviation that began with dishonesty” and quoting a proverb — “a needle thief becomes a cow thief.”

Before the Supreme Council session, Kim appeared on the party’s official YouTube channel Miniti07 and described the response line as “cleaning up the embers of Jo’s insurrection.” He said a chief justice ignoring the Constitution and statutes to engage in a “power struggle with the president” was “unprecedented” and “a first in history.”

Kim linked the refusal to Dec. 3 martial law, saying the court “failed to take a clear position and now appears to have stood with insurrection forces,” and to President Lee Jae Myung’s May 2024 election-law case — when the Supreme Court sent the matter to Seoul High Court with a guilty-leaning direction — charging the bench “tried to effectively kill candidate Lee.”

Why it matters outside Korea

Foreign investors, diplomats, and Korea-based legal teams track Supreme Court appointments because the bench shapes election-law precedent, insurrection-related trials, and executive power cases. When a ruling-party leader publicly vows to deploy every legislative tool against the chief justice — and ties that fight to martial-law memory and a sitting president’s criminal docket — the signal is institutional stress, not routine parliamentary noise.

What travelers and expats should watch

• Do not assume impeachment hearings or summons are scheduled. Kim’s language is a threat of full Assembly powers, not a published calendar; treat Supreme Council remarks as political escalation until the National Assembly posts concrete committee actions.
• If you follow court news for business, visa, or compliance reasons, track Supreme Court vacancy timing separately from attendance and expense allegations. Kim mixed renomination refusal with office-hour and spending claims — conflating procedural delay with personal-conduct attacks can misread which lever actually moves appointments.
• Watch whether “judicial reform” bills appear alongside investigation talk. Kim explicitly framed the fight as reform fuel; new legislation could change how nominations, impeachment, or court administration work even if Jo remains in office.

Context

Read this as a ruling-party leader turning a renomination standoff into maximal legislative confrontation, not as proof Jo will be removed this week or that routine dockets will halt. Kim is stacking nomination refusal, Dec. 3 silence, Lee’s 2024 case, and attendance claims into one “insurrection embers” narrative to justify every Assembly tool — while the opposition still argues nomination authority belongs to the chief justice alone.

Source

Seoul Shinmun: 김민석 “조희대 재제청 거부는 국민 무시 태업…국회 모든 권한 쓸것” — Korean original; paraphrased for briefing; read the original for full detail.