I’ve done some research, and every supreme court from the US to the UK, from Canada to Japan, and every democracy in between, is appointed, either by the cabinet, the PM/President, or the constitutional monarch. Increased democracy in the middle east – has given the muslim brotherhood the opportunity for a one man one vote one time hegemony where it has come to power. I’ll take the freedom of western liberal democracy – with all of its flaws – over that every time.
Your perspective, moreover, is ironically quite anti democratic. Having failed to persuade the electorate that being torah observant is in their best interest, and the way to demonstrate that is to vote for Shas or Yahadut Hatorah, you now want to restrict the appointed judiciary to toe your party line even though you have failed democratically in the legislative branch.
Would you have a re appointment every time there is an election? in Israel’s case, that wouldn’t even be long enough to deliberate on a single complicated case, in some situations. totally unrealistic.
Regarding Emanuel, according to Sefardi chareidim, the court did the right thing, and I agree with them.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not happy with the liberal slant of the supreme court either. But I guess I understand the dynamics of a democracy and the division of powers within it enough to realize that to change it you have to influence those who make the appointment.