Would love feedback on this response. What do you like about this comment and what do you dislike about it$?$

"Lifetime judicial appointments allow for justices to make decisions independent of public, or private, political agendas. A lifetime appointment can be beneficial in such a way that justices continuously learn their craft. Lifetime appointments are also beneficial because judges are not forces to compete with one another, make empty promises to voters, or raise funding for a policital campaign, distracting them from their career. However, lifetime appointments can cause concern among the population for those who are declining in health, mentally or physically. In contrast, elected judges are forced to maintain their mental cognitive abilities, in order to gain support from voters. One of the benefits of having elected judges is the greater liklihood for a community support system. My personal opinion is that judges should be appointed, not elected, and this remains true for both the Supreme Court and state matters. The only situation in which I would support election of judges would be in county or city elections. If states were to adapt the appointment process of selecting a judge, I do believe that they should still have term limits$,$ unlike the Supreme Court. Briefly discussed in one of the articles former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg left a legacy behind her when she passed away in $2020.$ Ginsburg was an advocate for women's rights and left her mark on the fight for women's rights and equality. One case in particular is United States v$.$ Virginia, which eliminated an all$-$male acceptance policy at the Virginia Military Institute. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, like many other appointed judges, were able to make an impact on our judicial system through many years of law experience and studies. Without their full dedication to upholding and interpreting our laws, justices would merely be distracted attempting to influence the public with political arguments."