I don't see how making SCOTUS appointments a regularly-scheduled affair like the midterms is very likely to reverse the trend towards the hyper-politicization of the confirmation process.
A lot of the partisanship comes from the fact that justices serve 30 or 40 years on the court. One justice can quite literally change the court for generations, and trying to predict when the next favorable vacancy will come is a fool's errand. Under this, each justice's time on the court would be known and the order of the next vacancies to come would be known. As there would be a major election around the time of each vacancy, candidates would have to come up with concrete platforms regarding the type of justice they wanted, probably with examples of people they would likely support, and the will of the electorate regarding the type of justice desired by the people would be very clear. Furthermore, any longstanding precedents of the court would be longstanding bipartisan areas of near-permanent strong agreement, rather than just the creation of a partisan five justice majority that stays on the court for 40 years and conditions society to an unjust precedent such that it is not removed for a very long time, if at all. Furthermore, as precedent would change fairly frequently, lower court judges would no longer be able to pretend to be non-ideological by hiding behind longstanding precedents, and thus we would have a more concrete understanding of what we are getting in each lower court judge.
The only potential problem to remedy is this:
Perry's plan still has the "what if a Justice dies relatively early on" problem. An 18 year term is long enough that death is a reasonable consideration.
