I think sometimes you can actually have too much 'democracy'. To an outsider the politicisation of the American judiciary is truly shocking, and suggests that the separation of powers lacks, well, a certain degree of separation.
From the American conservative position what is apparently desired is a 'non-activist' judge who will faithfully 'interpret' the constitution. American 'liberals' [sic] seem to want someone who will 'defend' the 'gains' of social advance. What no-one seems to be arguing for is judges whose political views are totally private and, at least ideally, kept separate from their judicial decisions - and yet this is what we take for granted in the rest of the democratic world.
The UK system for judicial appointments is hardly perfect; so much so that it is currently in the midst of a major overhaul. Nevertheless, there are no 'hearings' to discover the party political loyalties of the candidates before appointing them.
The Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 will set up a 'Supreme Court of the United Kingdom'. The UK Government will establish an independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to recommend candidates to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for appointment as judges. Of course politicians will make the final decision (as in the US) and the monarch will technically make the appointments "acting on the advice of her ministers". However, despite the archaic frummery, wigs and gowns, we do seem to have a truly independent judiciary capable at times of embarrassing or thwarting the government by its rulings and avoiding the undue party politicisation that Americans seem to take for granted.
