Indeed, xzins. The lifetime appointment principle was originally designed to insulate judges from politics. Notwithstanding, the bench has become thoroughly politicized. So it seems lifetime appointment no longer serves its original constitutional purpose.
Still the idea of direct election of federal judges and justices for a term of years seems to go too far in the other direction. Maybe a good compromise position would be presidential appointment for a term of years?
What do you think/recommend?
It insulates them from politics (What a joke, but oh, well.) but keeps the court from being dominated by dottering old fools or nominations made exclusively of people in their early 50s.
I would not change anything. The Judges are nominated by the sitting President and remain on the Court until they decide to retire or leave this earth.
The 9 justices would have to be staggered over that 12 years into classes. One justice in the first off year election of a presidential term and two at the 3 year off term would be 3 every 4 years for 9 in 12 years wouldn't it?
If they are elected, I've considered the same pattern for elections, but I've wondered if the candidates shouldn't be regional. Northeast, southeast, northeast central, southeast central, northwest central, southwest central, northwest, southwest, Alaska&Islands. One could even consider regional elections rather than national elections.
These are all just thoughts, of course.