I floated a “poll” question the other day about the requirements to become a member of the US Supreme Court. My father would rage at FDR if provoked, and FDR’s attempt to stuff the court that kept blocking his progressive “new deal” programs. FDR tried to impose a mandatory retirement age and then tried to expand the size of the Court by adding new justices. He didn’t get what he wanted, but by being president for 13 years, he outlived enough to get his majority.
The poll results suggest few visitors consulted their pocket constitutions before guessing the answers.
http://streamingradioguide.com/show-poll.php?pollnum=2375
The first thing your pocket Constitution doesn’t say is that the Supreme Court has nine members. The Constitution empowers Congress to Establish the rules for the “inferior” (Less than a supreme) Federal system of courts.
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_01_txt.html
This vagueness prevented the Convention from getting into a fight, but leaves it as a legislative act to set the rules for the Courts. The United States Supreme Court has had different numbers of judges and is entirely a power of a Congress to change. In 1789, the first law provided for one Chief Justice and only 5 judges.
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_02_txt.html
The only clear Constitutional requirement is that members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate – that’s it. The rest is legislation and tradition.
While the Consent provision should eliminate abuse because Harry Reid is a responsible person, going back to my poll answers
– there is no 60 Senator requirement n the Constitution. There isn’t even a 50 Senator rule. “Consent” means whatever the Senate says it means.
– most people know that being a lawyer is not a requirement
– there is no requirement that you were born in the US – in fact, there is not even a requirement that you are a US Citizen.
– there is no age requirement. You probably qualify if you’re 18
– there is no requirement that you have a clean criminal record
– you could be the wife of the President
– the Oath of office created by legislation ends with “so help me God” – is that requiring a belief in any specific God? Article VI paragraph 3 is very direct that no government position can have a religious test
It was a different era – different norms. Assumptions were made. And it is a general “swearing” by YOUR god that you will uphold your end of the bargain whether your god is “The God of Abraham” or your god is Nature and Natural Laws of the “enlightenment” – at least, that is how I have always understood it and how I have looked at it. No one (and I mean NO ONE) in the United States, until very recently, ever suspected Allah would be involved or invoked in a “swearing” in for the variety of “oaths” to our constitution since all who swore by Allah swore to convert, subjugate, enslave or kill all who do NOT accept Islam. It’s in black and white… or washed out Gray and Yellow by now, I guess. I spent a week trying to find where Open Borders (think Ramos and Compian ), hidden Progressive-Lite ($6T in debt) George Bush came up with the “Religion of Peace” phrase right after 9/11 and the only thing I could find is that he “consulted” with the wonderful organization known as CAIR (basically the U.S. arm of the “beloved” Muslim Brotherhood). Until such time as they have a reformation similar to the Protestants and Catholics which eventually separated the church from the state once and for all, I don’t see the world lending much trust to their oaths of fidelity to any government that is not an Islamic state… but I digress (right off into the weeds)….