Seoul: The Democratic Party’s campaign committee announced its decision to withdraw two contentious legislative proposals aimed at altering the composition of the Supreme Court. These proposals included allowing nonjudges to be appointed to the Supreme Court and increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 100. The lawmakers behind these bills, Park Beom-kye and Jang Kyung-tae, were instructed to retract them following the statement by Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung, who clarified that the proposals did not align with his or the party’s views.

According to Yonhap News Agency, Lee Jae-myung’s directive for party members to exercise restraint comes amid growing public skepticism. Many view the legislative withdrawal not as a principled retreat but as a strategic maneuver to regain the support of moderate voters in a tightening race. Kweon Seong-dong, the floor leader of the People Power Party, criticized Lee for political opportunism, suggesting that Lee’s changing positions were m
erely tactical and questioning his commitment to maintaining judicial independence if elected.

The Democratic Party’s push for judicial reform gained momentum after the Supreme Court returned Lee’s election law violation case with a guilty verdict implication, prompting intensified criticism of the judiciary from the party. The campaign to exert pressure on the judiciary continued until recent polls indicated a closing gap between Lee and his conservative rival, Kim Moon-soo. This shift in public opinion appears to have prompted the Democratic Party to adjust its stance, recognizing that excessive pressure on the courts could alienate centrist voters.

Additionally, the party has retreated from pursuing a special counsel bill targeting Chief Justice Jo Hee-de. This withdrawal highlights concerns that judicial reform efforts were being politically framed around Lee’s candidacy, potentially undermining democratic principles. The public’s expectation for a functioning rule of law emphasizes the importance of ma
intaining trust and reducing anxiety over political influence on the judiciary.

These issues were also evident during Monday’s National Judges Conference, where 88 out of 126 representatives participated. The conference, which lasted just over two hours, did not adopt a formal agenda and postponed discussions until after the election. The key issues of judicial independence and the political neutrality of Supreme Court rulings remain sensitive topics for sitting judges, with the conference acknowledging concerns about the potential electoral impact of the judiciary’s stance during the campaign.

Judicial independence and public trust are essential components of a democratic society. As such, it is crucial for presidential candidates to demonstrate their commitment to preserving the judiciary’s independence from politicization during this critical election period.