If that's the case then the Cartels already elect/make most of the politicians — whom select the judges — so there's not really much of a difference, is there?

Electing judges is stupid. Judges should be neutral and uphold the current laws. It is up to the elected parties / president / groups to make sure all Judges are neutral. If you can vote on Judges that mean they have a political power that has nothing to do with their job.

What many democracies around the world are missing is greater recallability in offices. Citizens need to be able to easily oust people nonviolently.

Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.

Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).

Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.

Sortition is one way, if you don't want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.

I disagree. All that does is turn judges into politicians. The US Supreme court isn't elected, but selected by politicians. Keep politics as far as you possibly can from people with an interest in gaming the system.

The thing is that the candidates for judges will be chosen by commitees from "the 3 powers" which are, basically, under controll of MORENA.

Probably. You're now going to have judges raising money to campaign. And the average on-the-street voter knows fuck-all about what qualifies somebody to be a judge, so they're unlikely to pick better candidates.

No system is 100% resistant to shitters.

Life appointment was supposed to get judges to focus on issues and not make decisions with re-election in mind. Supreme court in the U.S. has shown us how that is going.

You can have judges appointed and term limit them. It's not an either/or.

I would prefer appointments approved by Congress with both term limits and a maximum age. Judges should have minimal political incentive.

Depends on who will elect them and how the voting process works.

Having them be appointed by politicians isn't making much sense either. It's not a secret that many judges have their own political affiliations since they often get appointed with support from different political factions (see the supreme court in the US). In theory, you're right. In practice, it doesn't always work that way.

Like the unbiased judges appointed by politicians?

Do you want neutral judges or do you want judges that align with the popular view?

John Roberts spent his confirmation process convincing everyone he was a "neutral" balls and strikes judge. All his opinions are phrased to imply he is taking a rational and fact based approach to the law. Yet his decisions are all in favor of hard right positions.

Do you want a judge like that? Or do you want an "activist" judge that respects unions, defends abortion rights and voting rights, and curtails the power of private industry to subvert democracy?