You are right about electing judges. Here in Texas we have an elected Texas Supreme Court and it is reliably conservative.
Well, there you go. Having an elected SC works fine in Illinois and Texas. No "stealth liberals" making it past the primary here. Instead of going the route that alot of freepers want and having more govenrment control over our lives via an appointed U.S. Senate, maybe we should go the opposite route and allow more freedom via letting the people pick the SC justices. I think the voters could have done better than Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, etc. Then we'd have a good chance of getting a Republican on the court whether Obama or McCain is the next President -- and for those that don't "trust McCain" on this, it's out of his hands.
And here's the icing on the cake: based on the way the federal circuit is set up and what states each judge on the USSC "represents" (I'm ignoring the DC and at-large circuits, both represented by Roberts), Clinton appointee Steven Breyer would most likely be toast if he had to face the voters of his circuit. (Souter would probably lose too, but he ALREADY votes like a RAT so there would be no idealogical shift if he lost) The states they represent are:
KENNEDY (R)
California
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
Idaho
Arizona
Montana
Alaska
Hawaii
BREYER (D)
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Kansas
Oklaholma
ALITO (R)
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansas
STEVENS (RINO)
Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin
ROBERTS (R)
Michigan
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee
SCALIA (R)
Texas
Louisiana
Mississippi
GINSBURG (D)
New York
Pennsyvania
Deleware
THOMAS (R)
West Virgina
Virgina
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Florida
SOUTER (RINO)
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Mass.
Conn.
Rhode Island