As originally written this question comes off as "Why doesn't the United States Supreme Court use the Italian system, since it's perfect?"
As noted this tends to lead towards responses about how the Italian system is not perfect.
And just mentioning Italy's differences doesn't really prove that someone has done research. Demonstrating research would require showing multiple differences, particularly in systems that are more like the US. Or even parts of the US. States have their own supreme courts which often work differently.
You might consider what you really want to know. Do you want to know what reforms are being considered of the US Supreme Court? Why it has lifetime terms and not nine year terms? Why all its members are picked by presidents and not by multiple branches? Is the Italian system perfect? Any of those questions is possible (although the first is a bit open-ended and the last subject to opinion). Your original question sort of mixed them all into one. Either of the middle two questions would be a much better fit for the site.
In a comment, you said
the middle two questions are basically my previous question, that did not get really satisfying answers, tbh. and the new question was suggested below the old one as a "better question". now you tell me that the old one is "better". I remain of the idea that this site does not have great guidelines.
I am not saying your previous question was better. As already noted, if you mention your own country's system in contrast, it increases the feedback that your own country is not perfect. So it has that against it.
Both questions are also rather broad. I suggested asking one of four questions. You then point me to a question that asks three of them. That might be better than asking all four, but not by much.
My biggest takeaway for your first question is that it should be on History.SE, not Politics.SE. You are asking how the system came to be. The system is over two hundred years old. There are going to be very few people here who are qualified to talk about what the historical situation was. Yet that seems to be what you're asking.
Not getting the kind of answers that you wanted, you then asked another question that was even broader than the first. It kept all the elements of the first and added the question of what revisions have been proposed. You made it rather clear that you were looking for revisions that would make the court work the way that you wanted it to work: to be less partisan and for court appointments to be for limited terms.
It is possible that your second question was worse than your first. But that doesn't make your first question great, good, or even adequate.
The strongest questions ask a single question. Your questions are basically, I see some aspects of the US system. Why isn't it more like the Italian system? Or is anyone talking about making it more like the Italian system?
What would happen if someone wrote the same question from the other perspective. E.g.
Given the corruption in the Italian system, are they considering changing their nine year terms on the top court to be lifetime terms and making their judges under more control of democratically chosen institutions, possibly by having them nominated by the president and confirmed by the legislature. That system is great at preventing corruption in the US. Are the Italians considering it?
Would you be annoyed by the implicit assumption of that question that the Italian court system is corrupt? Would you write an answer that answers in reverse the questions that you have about the US system? If your answers are yes to the former and no to the latter, then this would seem pretty much the mirror image of your questions.
I still, after two questions and a meta question, don't know what you want to know. Part of this may be that you're not sure. You don't understand something and can't really put it in words. That's normal and human. It happens to all of us sometimes. But it often makes for lousy questions here, as we are unlikely to be better than you at expressing what you don't know. This is because we have even less insight into you than you do. At best, we might bring a different perspective.