Kim Ki-pyo, a Democratic Party lawmaker on the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, argued that Chief Justice Jo Hee-de's refusal to comply with a request to renominate a Supreme Court justice candidate "constitutes grounds for impeachment, regardless of whether it was unconstitutional or illegal." His reasoning was that Jo dragged the judiciary into the middle of political turmoil by rejecting the renomination request even though he anticipated a prolonged vacancy on the Supreme Court and a clash with the Presidential Office.
Speaking on KBS Radio's "Jeongyeok Sisa" on the 28th, Kim said Jo could have fully anticipated the ensuing conflict from the moment he nominated a Supreme Court justice candidate without consulting the Presidential Office. "From the standpoint of a president who holds the appointment power, he would think, 'I hold the appointment power, and you're telling me to go along with whomever you nominate?' In that case, he has no choice but to request a renomination," Kim said. "If the chief justice acted while fully predicting everything that would follow, then this is conduct that creates political turmoil."
Kim argued that refusing the renomination request despite such a foreseeable clash could constitute grounds for impeachment. "By standing against the president again and again, the judiciary — which in some sense ought to be the most stable institution in our society — is doing the most to throw the country into chaos," he said. "Regardless of whether it was unconstitutional or illegal, that too constitutes grounds for impeachment." He added that it amounts to "pulling the judiciary back into the middle of politics" and that Jo "is not qualified to serve as chief justice."
Kim explained, however, that a separate review of unconstitutional or illegal conduct would be necessary for an actual impeachment motion. "Impeachment has to be divided into two perspectives, the legal and the political," he said. "You cannot impeach simply because you want to, when there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal." He added, "We need to lay out precisely which of the chief justice's actions from the night of the insurrection until now were unconstitutional or illegal, and examine what evidence there is for them," stressing that a political judgment on whether to actually pursue impeachment would follow.
Kim sharply criticized Jo's refusal to renominate, citing the president's power to appoint Supreme Court justices. Responding to the Supreme Court's statement that there is no constitutional basis for the Presidential Office's renomination request, he called it "an argument that makes no sense" and "sophistry." He added, "Because it challenges an appointment power that carries far greater democratic legitimacy, I went so far as to call it an insurrection."
Kim said he would focus on scrutinizing the process behind the refusal to renominate, as well as the allegations surrounding Jo, at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee session that day. Regarding claims that the National Court Administration had advised Jo that he should accept the renomination request, Kim said, "We will of course have to verify whether such an opinion was actually submitted."
Kim also emphasized the need to examine allegations over Jo's use of his official expense account. "This will be an occasion to press the question of whether the chief justice did in fact use his expense account without following the law, and what the reality is behind a chief justice who spoke as though he alone stood above it all," Kim said.
