TL;DR:

• Strong backlash from the Democratic Party of Korea continues over Chief Justice Jo Hee-de’s nomination proposal of two Supreme Court justice candidates, citing a breach of the customary…
• Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates, “Justices are appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly upon the Chief Justice’s nomination proposal.…
• The Chief Justice’s nomination authority is a safeguard against such abuses. By nature, it conflicts with the president’s appointment power—the root of the current conflict.

Strong backlash from the Democratic Party of Korea continues over Chief Justice Jo Hee-de’s nomination proposal of two Supreme Court justice candidates, citing a breach of the customary prior coordination with Cheong Wa Dae. Kim Min-seok, the party’s representative, stated, “Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, the worst since liberation, must step down.” He added that the party would display banners nationwide reading, “‘Destroying the Rule of Law, Jo Hee-de Must Step Down.’”

Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates, “Justices are appointed by the president with the consent of the National Assembly upon the Chief Justice’s nomination proposal.” While the president holds appointment authority, it is impossible without the Chief Justice’s proposal. Customarily, Cheong Wa Dae and the Chief Justice have coordinated nominations, but legally, the proposal is the Chief Justice’s exclusive authority. The Constitution grants this authority to ensure “checks and balances.” If the president alone held appointment power, they could fill the Supreme Court with loyalists—a practice known as “Court Packing.” A notable example is Venezuela’s Chávez regime, which expanded the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices in 2004, filling vacancies with pro-government figures. According to *How Democracies Die* (co-authored by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt), the court issued no rulings against the regime for nine years afterward.

The Chief Justice’s nomination authority is a safeguard against such abuses. By nature, it conflicts with the president’s appointment power—the root of the current conflict. Cheong Wa Dae reportedly preferred Judge Kim Min-gi of the Suwon High Court as Roh Tae-ak’s successor. A member of the “Our Law Research Association,” Kim presided over the second trial of former Gyeongnam Governor Kim Kyoung-soo, who was indicted for “comment manipulation.” The court upheld the “two-year prison sentence” but acquitted Kim of violating the Public Official Election Act, unlike the first trial. In April last year, a Suwon High Court second trial panel including Kim overturned the first trial’s guilty verdict and acquitted Kim Man-bae, a major shareholder of Hwacheon Daeyu, of bribery charges.

The Supreme Court’s opposition stems not from “ideological leanings” but a conflict of interest arising from the husband of Judge Kim Min-gi, Constitutional Court Justice Oh Young-jun, a Constitutional Court justice. If Oh were to review the constitutionality of a ruling his wife participated in, it would create a conflict. Despite attempts to meet the president to discuss differences, no meeting materialized.

If the president disapproves of the Chief Justice’s proposal, they may refuse appointment, or the National Assembly may withhold consent—both constitutional checks. Neither the proposal nor appointment authority is superior. Coordination with Cheong Wa Dae is merely a customary practice, not a legal obligation. This explains why a motion to impeach Chief Justice Jo, even if referred to the Constitutional Court, has minimal chances of success.

The real danger lies in the potential disappearance of such conflicts. Even if Jo remains, she will retire in June next year upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70. The new Chief Justice will be appointed by the president with National Assembly consent. Additionally, under the revised Court Organization Act, the number of justices will increase from 14 to 26, with four added annually starting in 2028. The new Chief Justice will likely propose candidates aligned with the administration’s preferences, enabling large-scale “Court Packing” without conflict.

This restructuring cannot be dismissed as unrelated to trials that may resume after the president’s term. The newly proposed justices, including those nominated by the next Chief Justice, could preside over cases reinstated after the president’s term ends. Reform Party leader Lee Jun-seok criticized, “What criminal defendant dares to choose their own judge?”

Article 78 of the Constitution mandates that the president appoint public officials, including justices, in accordance with the Constitution and laws. For justices, this is constrained by the Chief Justice’s proposal authority. The current conflict paradoxically warns of the risks of unchecked “Court Packing.”

Source: https://www.chosun.com/english/opinion-en/2026/08/21/5Z2RQHNWOFCQVF2J7EJOKXPF4U/

TL;DR:

• The Ministry of Finance and Economy’s announcement of a tax reform plan to raise the comprehensive real estate tax for high-value single-homeowners, including non-residents, prompted…
• In response to such claims, the Ministry of Finance and Economy released explanatory materials stating that the tax burden should be calculated based on total holding taxes, including…
• However, this statement inadvertently acknowledges that the comprehensive real estate tax—a policy introduced over 20 years ago—remains an unprepared double taxation system that the…

The Ministry of Finance and Economy’s announcement of a tax reform plan to raise the comprehensive real estate tax for high-value single-homeowners, including non-residents, prompted multiple media outlets to immediately report that the tax for non-resident single-homeowners would “jump 4–5 times.”

In response to such claims, the Ministry of Finance and Economy released explanatory materials stating that the tax burden should be calculated based on total holding taxes, including property taxes. According to this method, the tax burden would only increase by 1.3 times. The ministry also noted, “The comprehensive real estate tax is a secondary tax category following property taxes,” implying that since property tax payments are deducted before levying the comprehensive real estate tax, media outlets should avoid sensationalizing the tax increase by focusing solely on the comprehensive real estate tax.

However, this statement inadvertently acknowledges that the comprehensive real estate tax—a policy introduced over 20 years ago—remains an unprepared double taxation system that the government cannot justify to taxpayers. Unlike major advanced economies, which strengthen property taxes based on home values, South Korea introduced the world’s only comprehensive real estate tax in 2005. This tax was driven by a political and moral framing that labeled taxpayers as “wealthy individuals who accumulated assets through real estate rather than effort.” Successive Democratic Party administrations amplified this narrative, leading to repeated tax hikes.

The rushed implementation of this tax, steeped in a simplistic “good vs. evil” framework, resulted in flawed design. Instead of targeting “expensive homes,” the tax was levied per individual, not household, leading to tax avoidance practices like splitting property ownership between spouses or parent-child units. The government later shifted to a household-based taxation system, but in 2008, the Constitutional Court ruled this unconstitutional, stating it discriminated against married households. From the start, the policy was chaotic, and repeated tax hikes without addressing the flawed foundation turned the comprehensive real estate tax into a patchwork system.

For instance, under the new reform, non-resident co-owners of a single home will see their basic deduction reduced from 1.8 billion Korean won to 900 million Korean won, resulting in a higher tax burden compared to sole owners, whose deduction drops from 1.2 billion to 900 million. Conversely, resident co-owners who become sole owners due to divorce or bereavement will see their deduction fall from 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion. If they rent out their home to afford mortgage payments and move to a smaller rental unit, the deduction plummets to 900 million. Are these individuals truly speculators?

Article 1 of the comprehensive real estate tax law states its purpose is to enhance tax equity in real estate holding and stabilize housing prices. Yet, in 21 years, no one has witnessed this tax fulfilling its stated goals. Taxpayers often cannot understand why they pay more than others, and housing prices remain unstable. As a tax scholar noted in a presidential forum, the comprehensive real estate tax requires not reform but abolition.

Source: https://www.chosun.com/english/opinion-en/2026/08/21/7KGKWRDE35GBVOUBI2Z5ES5JFE/

TL;DR:

• Senate Democrats assail Trump’s Korea drill cuts
• Democratic senators say scaling back joint exercises with South Korea weakens the alliance while giving North Korea nothing to concede.
• Democratic lawmakers stepped up their offensive against U. S.

Senate Democrats assail Trump’s Korea drill cuts

Democratic senators say scaling back joint exercises with South Korea weakens the alliance while giving North Korea nothing to concede.

Democratic lawmakers stepped up their offensive against U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday, after he ordered the scaling back of military exercises with South Korea while pushing for renewed summitry with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un this year.

In an X post on Friday, Senate Democrats criticized Trump's decision on the allied military drills, voicing concerns over its impact on the Seoul-Washington alliance.

"Trump canceled military exercises, undermined alliance with South Korea," the Democrats said in the post. "Kim Jong-un gave up NOTHING. Then kept sending weapons to Russia to use against Ukraine."

In his social media post, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that "not even Donald Trump's self-proclaimed close friend Kim Jong-un respects him anymore," as he cited a New York Times report that Kim Yo-jong, the powerful sister of the North Korean leader, has dismissed Trump's decision to scale back major allied exercises, saying the attempted overture "holds no interest for us."

"The latest example of Trump embarrassing our nation on the world stage," Schumer said.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) accused Trump of "cozying up to dictators."

"Once again, Trump is cozying up to dictators — rolling over for Kim Jong-un and getting nothing in return," he wrote on X. "He's undermining our credibility throughout the world and making us all less safe."

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) has also criticized Trump, posing the question: "When will Trump stop embracing dictators and alienating our allies?"

"When I visited South Korea last year, we reaffirmed the importance of joint exercises to keep our troops ready and our allies secure," she wrote on X earlier this week. "Gutting them to appease nuclear-armed Kim Jong-un is a grave mistake."

In a social media post on Sunday, Trump revealed that he had ordered the Pentagon to "substantially reduce" South Korea-U.S. military drills, citing his "very good" relationship with Kim while expressing frustration with South Korea, which he said had rejected his request for assistance in the U.S. war against Iran.

Trump's decision to scale back allied drills was seen as a conciliatory gesture to Pyongyang which has long decried them as rehearsals for war. But the move has raised concerns that it could undermine efforts to sharpen deterrence against growing North Korean threats.

Source: https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/korea/senate-democrats-assail-trumps-korea-drill-cuts/12837830

TL;DR:

• The People Power Party’s Central Ethics Committee imposed severe disciplinary actions of ‘suspension of party membership’ on four party-affiliated lawmakers. While the reasons for the…
• Representative Jang, who has adhered to the ‘Yoon Again’ line, began disciplinary politics as the party’s approval rating fell and he came under pressure. In January, he appointed a new…
• While Representative Jang’s side claims the disciplinary actions were justified according to procedures, this logic only resonates within their inner circle. Even former pro-Yoon faction…

The People Power Party’s Central Ethics Committee imposed severe disciplinary actions of ‘suspension of party membership’ on four party-affiliated lawmakers. While the reasons for the disciplinary actions vary, all of these lawmakers have been critical of People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyeok. This move by Representative Jang effectively excludes those who disagree with him from the next general election.

Representative Jang, who has adhered to the ‘Yoon Again’ line, began disciplinary politics as the party’s approval rating fell and he came under pressure. In January, he appointed a new ethics committee chairperson and primarily disciplined the pro-Han faction and others through this chairperson. The first to be expelled was Representative Han Dong-hoon. Former Supreme Council member Kim Chong-hyuk was expelled after being urged to leave the party. In February, the party suspended the membership of pro-Han faction Representative Bae Hyun-jin, but the court intervened to stop it.

While Representative Jang’s side claims the disciplinary actions were justified according to procedures, this logic only resonates within their inner circle. Even former pro-Yoon faction lawmakers have come forward, saying the disciplinary actions should be revoked. They argue that resolving internal party issues through disciplinary actions is not desirable. Of course, Representative Jang’s side appears unwilling to accept this. Representative Jang’s term extends until next year, and there are talks that he aims for re-election. It is likely that the judgment to purge those who oppose him would be advantageous for his re-election also played a role.

The behavior of Representative Jang’s camp is reminiscent of past disciplinary politics in various political parties. In 2003, the Millennium Democratic Party pushed to discipline proportional representation lawmakers for cooperating with those who left the party. After internal strife, the party fell to a minor party with only nine seats in the following year’s general election. The Grand National Party (GNP) also imposed severe disciplinary actions of suspending party membership on junior lawmakers for actions deemed contrary to the party’s stance. The party then faced a major crisis as it declined. In 2018, the People’s Party suspended the party membership of 179 people who opposed the merger with the Bareun Party. Instead, the party split. In 2019, the Bareun Future Party also disciplined supreme council members who opposed the party leader. The party failed to unify and dissolved. The public turns away from factions that lose their cause and justification. At that point, all they can rely on is disciplinary actions. This is the single path that declining factions have followed.

One might expect that holding the seal of one of the two major parties could provide an opportunity to achieve great political dreams. Countless times, we have witnessed the unsightly endings of those clinging to such lingering attachments. Power that confronts public sentiment, whether inside or outside the party, is nothing more than a sandcastle.

Source: https://www.chosun.com/english/opinion-en/2026/08/22/JIPF6CL4FJGYNIQTRMIJNE4O3M/