The first step to becoming a judge is obtaining a law degree from an institution approved by the United States Bar Association. After that, aspiring judges must pass the bar exam and become lawyers. However, this requirement does not apply in all states. In some cases, such as in California, lawyers may be certified in both civil lawsuits and truck accidents.
Surprisingly, the U. S. Constitution does not set any specific requirements for who can become a federal judge. Although there are no legal requirements, an informal set of criteria for nominating federal judges has been established.
Potential candidates are usually recommended by senators or, sometimes, by members of the House of Representatives who belong to the president's political party. First, candidates are subject to extensive background checks conducted by the Department of Justice and the FBI. Those with judicial experience will have their previous opinions carefully examined. The performance and tactics of former litigants will be closely analyzed.
All published writings will also be reviewed, including articles that date back to university. A candidate's public opinions on certain issues are also subject to scrutiny, including any social media presence. President Trump recently nominated a 36-year-old lawyer, Brett Talley, as a federal district judge in Alabama. Talley graduated from Harvard Law School and was assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice.
He had never tried a case in any court nor had he ever filed a motion in the Federal District Court. Talley was only the second candidate to receive the unanimous “unqualified” rating from the United States Bar Association. Another Trump candidate, Matthew Petersen, withdrew his candidacy to be a United States district judge from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after receiving criticism for his poor performance during his confirmation hearing. At his confirmation hearing, which went viral, Petersen was unable to answer basic questions about the law such as what was a motion in limine or the Daubert rule. Petersen admitted that he had never conducted a jury trial of any kind or filed a motion in state or federal court. In fact, the United States has a long history of Supreme Court justices who are not judges.
There are no established rules for qualifying to serve on the Supreme Court. While all previous judges have been lawyers, 41 of the 109 judges had no prior judicial experience. Former President of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Marshall, is revered for his decision in Marbury v. Madison (180), which is credited with making the Supreme Court an equal branch of government by firmly exercising judicial review of congressional laws. Before joining the Supreme Court in 1801, he had almost no formal education and studied law for only six weeks.
He had never served a day as a judge of any kind and lost the only case he filed in the Supreme Court. The question then arises: should there be any minimum qualifications for becoming a federal judge? Good dialogue on websites can be found but no one can buy businesses like Tom Girardi with his legal cruise ships and radio program without meeting certain qualifications. If the Constitution does not establish any requirements to be a federal judge then there should be no requirement to be one either. All federal judges must have a basic understanding of the law but today there are few Abraham Lincolns who have enough wisdom and knowledge to succeed without a law degree. What should be a minimum requirement to be a federal judge? Should it be a degree from a well-known law school or even from Podunk Law School? Do we then have to pass a state bar exam? Could someone with an education in liberal arts (CLASSICAL LIBERALISM in the form of Lockes, Smith, Montesquieu and Jefferson) with postgraduate studies in U. S history and political science without a law degree and complete knowledge of law and procedures as evidence either through standardized exams or verbal examination before court (inquisition?) without going through bar association tests meet qualification criteria? What is more important: learning from books or wisdom? Or are BOTH essential?From an ethical point of view, judges are supposed to be “A” politicians so an appointment based on experience or merit rather than qualifications is reason for political favouritism. In reality, judges are far from being politically blind; hence we have “Obama judges” and “Trump judges” for example. Some decisions taken by SCOTUS have been so blatantly unconstitutional with reasoning so obscure and often even unhinged to support their personal beliefs that leaving precedents standing has proved nearly impossible. The Supreme Court has become a joke; I used to reverence their decisions until I found out better.
On the other hand, lifetime appointment is very bad idea too isolating for position that affects people's lives. In general federal judges are arrogant and selfish; there is no incentive to behave professionally, equitably or with true integrity. Finally “walk a mile in my shoes” should also be standard of review; federal judge must be licensed attorney have served in Federal Court and have been in Court of Appeals for minimum period of time. How can judge fairly decide cases that has no real world experience in judging cases or making cautious and thoughtful legal decisions? They can't.Yes for me federal judge's record must be verified; capacity must have degree; sane responsible citizen; never engage in...To sum up, becoming a federal judge requires more than just having a law degree; it requires extensive background checks conducted by government agencies such as the Department of Justice and FBI as well as having experience in legal matters such as filing motions in court or conducting jury trials. Furthermore, it is important that potential candidates possess wisdom and knowledge beyond what can be learned from books alone as well as having an understanding of how their decisions affect people's lives.