That assumes that the popular decision is the wrong decision.

There are a couple of schools of thought on this. One is the school of thought that you expressed. This is also why the writers of the Constitution specifically made federal judges life-time appointments. However, the other school of thought is that, not being elected, judges can become out of touch with the people. One thing that you have to remember about judges is that they are people too. This means that they will not always make the right decisions. Sometimes they will let their own personal biases get in the way of making the right decisions. It is not uncommon for judges who loose sight of what they are supposed to be doing to start actually writing new laws themselves through the decisions they make. This is a violation of the separation of powers clause of the Constitution which delegates the authority to write laws to the legislative branch of the government, but judges keep getting away with it. Because this, at least some of the state have put provisions into their laws requiring judges to run for election periodically. This give the people the option to remove judges from the bench if they think that the judges are not fulfilling their duties properly. There is a very fine line that has to be walked here. Judges, being just a fallible as the rest of us, are not perfect. So, we do need to have a mechanism by which to reign them in if they get too irresponsible with the authority with which they are vested. On the other hand we do want the to be independent enough to not be swayed by popular opinion when it is clearly the wrong thing to do. Just where that balance should be I am not sure. To be quite honest I don't think that we will ever be able to find a balance between these to factors that will entirely satisfy everyone. So, we will just have to muddle through the best we can.

Yes and so does money.

The alternative is to have judges appointed. Who is going to appoint them? An elected official, so you still have the same issues. In the US there are appointed judges as well as elected judges. There are oversight boards which rate judges on their knowledge of the law, their fairness, and other qualities. These boards can recommend removal of an appointed judge, and they make their findings available to the public, so if it is an eledted judge you can use their findings to help make your voting decision. The US also has a built-in appeals process. In Appeals Court, you don't argue the facts of the case, you argue the decision itself and the fairness of the proceeding. Judges don't like having their rulings overturned on appeal and are usually quite careful to see that it doesn't happen. It certainly isn't a perfect system, but I prefer voting for judges to trusting some career politician with an agenda to appoint them.

How many of us actually know anything about the judges that are running for office or are that are appointed? The proverbial "average Joe" couldn't tell you who 1 Judge is unless it's Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown or the judge from the People's Court. So, those that are familiar with judges will always want judges that will further their agenda or support their politcal views whether left, right or moderate. I would have to say it is still better to have the opportunity to vote a judge in or out rather than have them appointed indefinitely.

Elections are not just about popularity. They are about undergoing scrutiny. An unjust judge would probably get a lot of feedback while campaigning! Some judges are appointed, however. Supreme Court Justices, among others, but there is still a check and balance between the Executive and Legislative branch. Somehow I think it would be impractical fr Presidents and Governors to select all judges.

i think that federal judges should be appointed because if they arent theyll be influenced by the public and be independent.