Source: Seoul Shinmun · 정치

What happened

According to Seoul Shinmun, Democratic Party lawmakers on the National Assembly Judiciary Committee kept up calls on Aug. 21 to impeach Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae. Committee chair Seo Young-gyo said an impeachment bill was already in place before the latest Supreme Court justice nomination fight — not drafted because of it. Floor leader Kim Seung-won went further: the nomination process itself, he argued, adds fresh grounds for impeachment.

The day before, judiciary committee members from the Democratic Party, Rebuilding Korea Party, and Progressive Party held a press briefing at the National Assembly press center urging Jo to resign.

The breakdown

Seo told YTN radio that Jo “basically should be impeached,” citing repeated constitutional and legal violations. If a chief justice acts unconstitutionally or illegally, he said, National Assembly impeachment is the remedy aside from criminal investigation.

Rep. Kim Yong-min said on July 1 the party was preparing a motion to “thoroughly settle insurrection and hold unconstitutional and illegal acts to account,” citing alleged judicial election interference, insurrection-trial handling, and refusal of Assembly attendance requests. Seo stressed Kim’s draft predates the vacancy fight: “It was before this nomination — not because of it.” Party-level impeachment talks have not fully started, he added — new leadership needs time to build public consensus.

Kim Seung-won, on MBC radio, focused on the 209-day gap during which Jo did not nominate a successor to former justice No Tae-ak, calling that dereliction of duty. He also attacked Court Administration’s reported review of restarting the recommendation process by contacting four candidates already advanced by the Supreme Court justice recommendation committee — labeling that abuse of authority. “If sitting on a nomination for 209 days is dereliction, trying to completely overturn four recommended candidates is nothing but abuse of authority,” he said. Asked whether the nomination episode alone qualifies, he answered: “Of course it does” — an unlawful official act, not necessarily a crime.

Why it matters outside Korea

Foreign investors, diplomats, and Korea-based legal teams watch the top court because it sits at the intersection of election law, insurrection trials, and executive power. An impeachment drive against the chief justice — even while still rhetorical — signals judicial independence and case timelines remain live political battlegrounds.

What travelers and expats should watch

• Do not assume a resignation or impeachment vote is imminent. Seo said full party discussion has barely begun; treat radio remarks as positioning until the National Assembly schedules a bill.
• If you follow court news for business or visa cases, track Supreme Court vacancy timing. A 209-day unfilled seat and any reset of a four-candidate recommendation list can delay senior appointments that shape corporate and administrative precedent.
• Separate resignation pressure from impeachment math. The Aug. 20 joint press call urged Jo to step down; impeachment needs a separate legislative path — conflating the two breeds bad compliance forecasts.

Context

Read this as a pre-positioned impeachment narrative meeting a fresh vacancy fight, not as proof that Jo will be removed next week or that the Supreme Court is about to halt routine civil and criminal dockets. The non-wire insight: ruling-bloc leaders are arguing timing — bill before nomination, process itself as grounds — to frame delay and procedural reset as constitutional crises worthy of removal, while their own leadership admits public consensus work still lies ahead.

Source

Seoul Shinmun: 서영교 “조희대 탄핵안, 제청 논란 前 마련”…김승원 “제청 과정도 탄핵 사유” — Korean original; paraphrased for briefing; read the original for full detail.