Yes, but you know as well as I do that I can't ask you for an opinion. You've made it quite clear that you're not here to give legal advice.
If someone has been out of a particular position that has a required qualification for five, seven, or eight years, he or she is generally not going to be considered. You're going to take someone who's currently in the position.
You put “former judge” so that someone who's an actual judge could be appointed, and he or she would have to be a former judge to take up the appointment. The explanation that you had given was that it was because we had specifically said it should be a judge or a former judge and a member or a former member. The explanation you gave was that under the legal definition and tradition, you put “former” because you're looking for the current one, and the person would have to automatically resign from the position of judge or a position in a tribunal or commission in order to be appointed.
The point you're making now doesn't hold water, if your first explanation was right.