In the United States Constitution, it establishes some qualifications for becoming a congressperson or president like age limitations, residency, and their citizenship. Presidents have to be at least 35, be a natural born citizen, and reside in the United States for at least 14 years. To go into the Senate, you must be at least 30 years of age, be a resident of the state you're representing, and be a citizen for at least 9 years. For the House, you have to be at least 25, be a resident of the state you're representing, and be a citizen for at least 7 years. There are no requirements to be a judge on the Supreme Court. Nothing about age, residency, or citizenship requirements for Supreme Court Judges. I propose we add another amendment adding qualifications for them. It would help make sure Judges are qualified. It makes sure that if one party controls the other two branches, they can't just get a judge in just because they are that party and follows that party.

For qualifications, I feel maybe a minimum of 40 years with the other 2 branches go up by 5s and make sure the Justices have some experience. Maybe the same as the president at 35. As well a natural born citizen and have a residency requirement (probably the residency requirement is slightly longer than for the presidency as an age I propose is higher than the president) to make sure they know the country and act more in its best interests. I feel like it would be good to have an education requirement, like at least a bachelor's in law. I could see it would be even better if it was a masters or a doctorate. Good if we have a bare minimum amount of education in law or history, at least a bachelor's or a master's. I feel like having good law education would make sure they know more about the constitution and previous cases and they could make more informed decisions on any new cases and anything about declaring something unconstitutional and could think more of the country's best interests. Possibly a minimum they serve as a lawyer or a judge as that could be even more informed. I am thinking about an age where they have to retire like 65 or 70, where the longest a justice could possibly serve is 25 or 30 years as knowing there will be a time they have to retire for if they don't decide to do so before hand.

I find those requirements would help put a check on political parties as a party can't just put a justice in who's not qualified enough just because that party controls the Senate and the presidency and that justice elect is that party. I'm an independent and don't feel like one party should have that much power. I just came up with those requirements for justices after reviewing requirements for the other branches. After covering the Judicial branch in my AP government class with Mr. Linderman, I felt like we should have requirements for the Supreme Court. As well, it could help bring new found trust in the court

Here in Michigan, we have requirements for people to become judges. Justices in the Michigan Supreme Court must have practiced law for five years and are younger than 70. Indiana states a candidate must be a U.S. citizen, must be admitted to Indiana's practice of law 10 years before their candidacy or served as a judge of a criminal, superior or circuit court for 5 years, and can't be under an indictment from any court for a crime punishable with a felony. The New York Supreme Court has a mandatory retirement age of 70. The California Supreme Court has appointees being an attorney admitted to practice in California or served as a judge for 10 years immediately prior. Florida Supreme Court justices must be an elector of the state, reside in the state when assuming office, be a part of the Florida Bar for 10 years, and be younger than 75. But for the national level, there are no requirements of any kind. There could still be debates on the specific requirements as that's what I thought of for requirements. I'm alright with keeping life appointments and the president nominating and the Senate confirming judges as it helps check all three branches (the supreme court checks the other branches by judicial review, of which it granted itself with Marbury v Madison, in which this petition could try to officially put in the constitution, and life terms means the next president can't get rid of a Justice because they don't want their predecessor's justice in there, a fair check on the Supreme Court is that if the other two branches is that anyone who goes into the Supreme Court is confirmed by the other branches, and good check on those two branches is by one appointing and other confirming). That combined with requirements for being a judge would greatly help check parties in my opinion.There might not always be the same party in control of the executive and legislative but when there is, there isn't a check on parties as a means for the judicial by there not being a bare minimum requirement. There could be a vast majority of a party in the Senate and the president is the same party. It would then be way easier to get a Justice in just because they're of that party even if they aren't the most qualified. Though there should be debate what happens to Justices who are currently on the Supreme Court who don't meet requirements (I say maybe it would be applied when a justice's life term is over and doesn't apply to those currently in office). 

I find partisanship is a big problem for our government today and do anything to help check political parties. George Washington warned against them and it'd be good by limiting a dominant party by establishing qualifications for the Supreme Court of the United States. I find an amendment could also officially state judicial review in the constitution and officially put a specific number of justices on the court (could state the current number of 9 is the official amount).