Yes, but the founding fathers believed in (or at least agreed to) the idea that the only way to make the judiciary independent is by making their terms lifetime appointments. The idea is that since they won’t be switched out by every president they can do things without political pressure (e.g they can repeal a law the president that chose them without facing repercussions). On the flip side, you can get stuck with people who don’t represent the “popular” POV (which is in my mind another plus).
That said, I do think we need to reform the way we elect Judges. What the GOP did to Obama and then did during the Trump years was dirty and wrong and shouldn’t happen again. They broke protocol.
BIG NOTE: I’m saying the above from what I know and it’s clear that if we want to change it, we can. It’s just that I do think there is merit to the original founding father’s thoughts on the judiciary branch. And certainly there are places where we can’t just have “tradition” protecting us and instead it must be instilled formally and legally. Keep in mind, the court has changed a few times over the course of our history. We can do it again, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we had some assholes taint the process.
Note2: would love to hear why you think term limits would be better? How many years? Are they selected by the people or another branch? How many justices and why?
keep in mind, most judiciary features are at the discretion of congress and it has been shaped for judiciary is