How can SCotUS be separate/independent branch of govt if appointed by *partisan* other branch?

[UTUSN]

In the category of sitting-around-bull-session/if-I-ruled-the-world:

Reforming (re-FORMing?!1 ) the SCotUS to give it its supposed separate/independent/equal branch status::

* How can it be independent if it is dependent to begin with on another branch for its composition?

* The branch appointing its composition is inherently *partisan* thereby injecting extreme partisanship into its decisions.

* The other two branches are elected, which appears to be the core of their independence, so why not SCotUS?

* Also, a mandatory retirement age, or just a term limit of 10 or whatever years?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The theory behind why Supreme Court justices are appointed to life terms

is that once they have the job they don't have to constantly pander to the electorate in order to keep it. Since the appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate it isn't the unilateral choice of the president; at least theoretically the legislative branch gets to weigh in. Unfortunately, as we have seen, when you have a craven and complicit Senate majority, whatever hack the president appoints will be confirmed. I don't think the lifetime appointment idea is necessarily a bad thing, though, since over time, since judges don't live forever, appointments are made by both sides of the political aisle. If justices had term limits or were elected instead of appointed we'd probably end up with even worse hacks than we have now, and the ideological pendulum would swing back and forth so extremely that there would be little consistency in the law over a long period of time. Electing judges is a bad idea - some states do it, and they usually wind up with highly politicized courts (e.g., Wisconsin).

[UTUSN]

2. Good points. "elected worse hacks" - senators were appointed before -

Whups, just blew my own argument!1