How judicial appointments are made is a fraught question! Zero political input is a laudable goal but there is always the counter-argument that in the public realm "apolitical" is a nonsense word. The other extreme—judges running for elected office—is more democratic, maybe, but more open to abuse.
Judicial appointments are complex. Zero political influence is ideal but unrealistic, while electing judges may be more democratic yet risks greater abuse.
Yeah, I'm not buying into the idea of elections being the opposite of political.
Are you happy with the UK system?
It's probably not the worst. The Judicial Appointments Commission seems competent, and has a duty to promote diversity in what was once a closed white men's club. Who chooses the JAC itself is unclear to me. How the UK Supreme Court is chosen is even unclearer! Jarndyce v Jarndyce springs to mind.
Right, but at least there is a conscious and concerted effort to maintain separation of powers. The US seems to have given up on the idea.