Does Article III Section 1 discuss qualifications for US Supreme Court justices?

Answer 1

No, the Constitution doesn't outline qualifications for US Supreme Court justices, other than specifying some general level of legal and ethical behavior being necessary to retain office (and by implication, to gain office). The President and Senate, with informal guidance from the American Bar Association and other advocates, decide what qualifications are relevant to the position based on the demands of the office.

For example, there is no requirement that a US Supreme Court justice have legal training, and a few Presidents, including George W. Bush and Barrack Obama, have considered nominating scholars from other fields of expertise. However, in order to perform the role of Supreme Court justice competently, the justice needs to an in-depth understanding of both federal and Constitutional law, which tends to limit the prospects to certain members of the legal profession who have made a career in this area.

Many of the earlier Supreme Court justices learned about the law by reading and studying under a mentor, rather than attending law school. In fact, as recently as the early-to-mid 20th century, not all lawyers possessed law degrees, and a few never attended law school at all. Most justices had held some form of public office, but few were judges before being commissioned to the Supreme Court.

Today, the standards appear much more stringent. Not only do all the members of the current Court possess law degrees, but they were all educated at the top law schools in the country. Another recent trend is toward developing future justices in the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts for a number of years to improve their understanding of judicial process.

None of these things are required by the Constitution; they are simply a matter of practicality.