Why not? Why judges are not for the public to pick? This puzzles me a lot lately, there's no democracy where Judges are picked by the population, although it's one of the main 3 powers of the state which should be itself accountable.
In most western democracies (and certainly in Westminster-style democracies, which I know best) the judges are bound by a certain set of rules that limit how activist they can be: specifically, a constitution. They're required to make findings of law, nor findings of morality, so they can't just manufacture law or destroy law as they see fit: they need a different law they can point to which overrules the one in question. Hence the US Constitution, which acts as the highest law in the land. A judge will always reference their decision, in the end, to an established law (or the constitution).
Conversely, elected officials are empowered to _make_ law. Less true in the US (where the constitution binds the hands of the legislature and executive), but very true in Westminster systems where parliament is the supreme authority.
Source (PDF): http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/become_a_judge.pdf
- Judicial recall certainly imposes accountability, even on unelected judges. Election, in fact, doesn't impose accountability anywhere; only re-election would do that.