I'm going to slightly disagree with you Jack. I think electing judges is an insane way of doing things since the loser will most likely have to go before the winner while arguing cases. I also think a lifetime appointment is wrong. Instead, let them be appointed but for a fixed amount of time, 10-15 years is probably a decent enough length.

Fifteen would be better than 10. But I still dislike putting judges before the angry mob.

Judicial races are ridiculous because no one ever dares challenge an incumbent! Look at your ballot next time and you'll see the incumbents all running unopposed, every last one of them, no exceptions. It's not surprising -- what lawyer in their right mind would want to run against a judge who they likely will have to deal with in court at some point? The whole thing is absurd (even leaving aside the question of whether judicial candidates should be forced to pander to voters). I do think that appointed judges should be subject every five years or so to some kind of expert panel that would evaluate their performance using objective criteria and feedback from the public. This panel could be partly elected.