Indeed, which suggests that in order to move towards the less acrimonious legal atmosphere of the UK or Europe, you would need to do more than adopt some of their mechanics. You'd ultimately need to de-politicize the entire branch of government.
As far as I know, in the UK and most of Europe, and definitely here in Canada, Judges are appointed by judicial commissions on the basis of strength of legal scholarship, not picked in a popular election based on who can raise the most money and pander to the right interest groups.
Beyond de-politicization, which can cut a lot of different ways, the other factor in acrimony-reduction is the European social safety net. The EU legal system doesn't have to be the tool of last resort to the same extent as in the American style.
What do you mean by the "European social safety net"?
The legal system should normally be the last resort, but you seem to be suggesting that we have some sort of universal alternative to try first. There may be other options in specific contexts, for example disputes with service providers in regulated industries where there is some sort of ombudsman scheme, but it is not the case in general.
I don't want my court case being judged by someone who has to consider what that judgement means for their chances of re-election. If they have to campaign, well, that takes money... so they'll need donors... so can they really afford to rule against LocalBigCo?
That is a very good question. One that men have asked themselves over millenias. That is why since the birth of Democracy in Greece, we have had tyrants, dictators, emperors, kings and queens, oligarchs, etc.
I would suggest however that in theory, the politicians sell their policies, rather than themselves per se, although they do sell a bit of themselves also. But the way our system works is, you have a philosophy of governance which is conservative, low taxes, traditional values, screw the poor, and the democrats, sort of distribute wealth, keep the companies in check, tax the rich higher, etc. Any one politician in this scheme is not an individual, but rather a representative of a philosophy, or even ideology. So, it is right that the public decides which they prefer at any given time.
However, it would be quite savagery for the public to decide as to who should be guilty of murder, or rape, or conspiracy, or robbery, or the thousands of cases that go through the court. It too would be idiotic for the lay public, with very limited knowledge of the law, to decide as to who should be a judge, a job which requires high intelligence, but also common sense, a sort of moral structure, so taught through law school. Same as it would be idiotic for the public to decide who should be a doctor.
Unless your court cases are all heard by the entire population, your judiciary is not a democracy anyway.
If your judges are appointed permanently by some sort of panel, drawn from some level of politicians, who are themselves elected via a system that is open to trivial interference by well-funded special interest groups, then your judiciary isn't even close to democratic.
The judges (in the UK) are appointed from senior lawyers by other judges who were themselves appointed by previous judges etc...
It does mean that it takes a few generations to get many black or women judges - but it does reduce the level of corruption and means that a lot of politically motivated prosecutions get thrown out.
It's not democratic - but neither is the process of selecting senior doctors from the ranks of junior doctors.
As far as I know, in the UK and most of Europe, and definitely here in Canada, Judges are appointed by judicial commissions on the basis of strength of legal scholarship, not picked in a popular election based on who can raise the most money and pander to the right interest groups.