Neither the election nor appointment of supreme justices is an ideal system. But as the [highest serving judicial body in the US] (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about), their independence and theoretical disentanglement from political bias are important.

• An elected US supreme court could result in popular public figures or those with name recognition gaining justice positions, rather than those best-qualified. It would also be near impossible for hopeful judges not to become entangled with political parties and the left/right divide if they had to fund & carry out election campaigns.

• In the current system, the President nominates a justice & they are then confirmed by the Senate. This isn't a perfect scenario by any means because it will likely be a political move. It is, however, in theory, combated by [the long tenure] (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch) of supreme court judges — which means they outlive whichever political party was in power when they were appointed. Making them (in theory) an independent judiciary branch.

• Whether elected or appointed, the supreme court judge selection system is never going to be without flaws. I understand arguments that support the shift to an electoral system since the supreme court should be vested in the interests of the wider population. But I also think that it's important to have qualified individuals in the judicial roles who possess significant legal expertise — and this is more likely to be a result of the Presidential appointment process.