In countries like the USA many people are frustrated with the control of the legislative majority or head of state over Justice appointments and the Law enforcement agencies (accusing the law enforcement of bias etc.), while in countries like Israel many people are frustrated with the inability of the nation to influence the ethics, morals and common sense according to which the judges are judging, as well as concern/accusations that the law enforcement agencies are becoming corrupt and biased due to the lack of civil oversight.
The argument not to allow judges to be elected by heads of state or regular parliaments, is basically that it may become too politicized and contaminated with other personal political goals, selfish interests and deals between parties. (Like people who fear that some future American president may become some sort of Putinistic leader, who will get his police, his AG and his judges to persecute his opponents (or like the people who believe that this is the situation today)).
Would the best solution be to establish a separate parliament, of delegates elected directly by the people (maybe about 30 seats), which is not related to the executive or legislative branches of government, which would elect/approve new judges, approve constitutional laws and also oversee the police, investigation and prosecution agencies?
According to my understanding, this would ensure that the ethics and values of the sitting justices would reflect the value systems of all groups in the nation, as well as law enforcement integrity. While not being impacted by short-sighted coalition-opposition (pro/anti government) politics.
An argument in favor of this proposal, may be, that usually when people are appointed to positions that require them to be apolitical, like judges, diplomats and ceremonial heads of state, they adjust (or try to adjust) to that standard. Executive heads of state and members of legislative parliaments are not asked to be apolitical.
Can you see any possible problems with such a system?
Note: In this question, when I write Politics, I'm refering to personal politics, i.e. pro/anti a certain politician. Moral/ethical controversies are totaly legitimate issues when considering/debating the appointment of judges etc.