>Implying their appointment by the government doesn't lead to political influence anyway
>Implying you can eliminate political influence while the laws they interpret are created by the government

And as an anarcho-capitalist, I see this as a bit of a non-issue. It's like asking me how business owners should go about hiring a manager.

Zen wrote:

To be very terse, I'm against the adoption of an election system. Courts can't afford to be ruled by populism and left/right politics.

This. While the government can't completely weed out politics when appointing judges (and they don't), I still see this as a superior alternative than electing them directly through the people. The advice and consent power granted to the Senate provides some level of neutrality while judges are appointed, though this only works if the Senate is fairly balanced itself.

Zen wrote:

To be very terse, I'm against the adoption of an election system. Courts can't afford to be ruled by populism and left/right politics.

This.

The idea of electing judges does disquieten me, but you can't deny that through election they can be closer to public opinion, which should at least be allowed to inform justice, and would usually allow them to make more popular decisions that would foster greater public trust in the justice system. Overall though, the problem of populism would lead me to be against them. It's a balance.

The concept of electing a judge makes me shudder. The very idea of a system where judges would make decisions based upon public opinion instead of the rule of law opens the doors to nothing but corruption. I can't recall the last time mobocracy did anything good and I can't see any such goodness in the future of judicial powers.