Like other federal judges, all full-time judges receive the same salary, regardless of where they work or how long they serve. The president appoints someone for a vacancy on the court and the Senate votes to confirm the candidate, which requires a simple majority. In this way, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government have a say in the composition of the Supreme Court. It is common knowledge that under Article II of the Constitution, a person must be 35 years of age, a “born citizen” and must reside for fourteen years to be president.1 Similarly, Article I of the Constitution describes the age and residence requirements of members of Congress2 and senators.3 It is unusual that no comparable qualification is listed for members of the federal judiciary.4 In addition, a review of the discussions in the Convention and other contemporary sources show that little attention has been paid to this subject. In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton defended Richter as “neither STRENGTH nor WILL, but only judgment.” 7 He stated that judges will work on the basis of precedents that “will require a long and arduous study to acquire competent knowledge of them. There may be few men in society who have sufficient legal skills to qualify them for the judiciary. 8 The number of people with the necessary knowledge would be further reduced by finding “those who combine the required integrity with the necessary knowledge.” 9 Hamilton continued in Federalist #79, not to recommend a minimum age or other qualifications for judges, but to argue with those who, under the precedent of the New York Constitution, believed that judges should resign at the age of 60. Hamilton`s arguments thus suggest that any opposition to judicial qualifications came from those who had addressed “the imaginary danger of an outdated bank.” 10 These concerns were reflected in a number of constitutional amendments11 as well as in Franklin Roosevelt`s 1937 judicial packaging system, which would have added one judge (up to a maximum of 15) for every judge over the age of 70.12 Most other academic discussions about judicial qualifications at the national level have focused on, among other things, on the question of whether members of the Supreme Court should have previous legal experience.13 Given the particular legal skills required of judges, the elimination of these qualifications is worth considering. The authors of this article propose five hypotheses on the reasons why judicial qualifications may have been omitted from the Constitution. Like associate judges, the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is not necessary for the Chief Justice to act as an associate judge, but 5 of the 17 Chief Justices were Associate Judges of the Court before becoming Chief Justices. The legislative and executive branches should be elected directly or indirectly by the people.14 In contrast, members of the judiciary should be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.15 At a time when people`s democracy was generally more feared than it is today, age and residency requirements may well have been seen as more necessary safeguards against the whims of the population than against the legislative and executive decisions.

The constitutional discourse of the founding period often referred to government as a series of filters or “inventions.” 16 If it had been felt that judicial candidates had gone through two filters instead of one, an additional restriction might have seemed superfluous. It may also be that minimum age limits have been included in the Constitution in response to past abuses in the UK system. The settlers knew the kings who had ascended to the throne before reaching maturity. At least one age requirement for executives would further underscore the anti-aristocratic and anti-hereditary nature of the new government, while fears of corruption over executive influence over the legislature may have given new impetus to a similar requirement for lawmakers. While judges were not the only government officials to be dismissed for impeachment convictions, constitutionalists would also have thought that the judiciary would be more likely to be held in check by impeachment provisions than members of the other two branches. State constitutions at the time often mentioned impeachment proceedings, or at least a “good conduct” service, as a safeguard against abuses by the judiciary. Some of the country`s first lawsuits were brought against members of the judiciary.17 The position and authority of district judges was created in 1968. Under federal law, magistrates must meet certain eligibility criteria, including at least five years as a respected member of the highest judicial prosecutor`s office in a state or territory.

They must also be reviewed by a selection committee composed of lawyers and non-Community lawyers. By majority decision of the U.S. District Justices of the Court, the judicial judges are appointed for an extended term of eight years. In addition, there are a small number of part-time judges serving four-year terms. “The 3. Articles of the United States Constitution. National Constitution Center – Article 3 of the United States Constitution, The Constitution prohibited examination eggs as required for office in states with religious qualifications.32 Nor did the Constitution stipulate that judges could not perform other functions.