I think having the people no matter how apathetic and unintelligible having a say is better than no say. When judges act up enough to garner public derision they can be removed. When they are appointed they get a talking to for playing fast and loose with the law.I think the exact opposite and this judge is elected. He isn't a great example of the wonders waiting for us if we start electing judges across the board.
This judge was first appointed by Perry according to you. So is it worse that he was appointed or that he is continually elected? Which way in reality is worse?