As long as I agree with the legislative intent

There was an intriguing argument in the comments following this Tennessean article ("Ramsey seeks deal on judicial selections"). I heard this novel argument second-hand over at the Capitol a couple weeks ago. From the comment:

[Judges] are not supposed to interpret the law based on their own policy views nor be swayed by public opinion but instead to faithfully adhere to the legislature’s intent.

The different way of electing judges rather than legislators, retention elections as opposed to partisan elections, is reflective of the different role of these two distinct branches of government. The role of judges is not to reflect their views or public opinion, the very essence of a contested partisan election. Their role is faithfully and impartially interpret the law. Retention elections allow the public to remove a judge that has strayed too far but protects the basic role of the courts. If throughout the judge’s tenure on the bench, the process for retaining that judge is further politicized, do not be surprised if you end up further politicizing the judges, who are elected by this system. Contested partisan elections will destroy the very thing that one wants: a judge who impartially interprets the law without regard to his or her own views or public opinion.

Get it? After drawing you in with the "faithfully adhere to the legislature's intent" language, the commenter brushes off the clear intent of Tennessee lawmakers (and voters, in 1977) who plainly have preferred contested elections. TomMore's preferred "policy views" are that commission-based selection of judges is the best way to get Originalist judges and to hold activist judges to account . . . the election data and common sense and Constitution say otherwise.