There can be little doubt that the current Supreme Court is politically biased. When ruling on major politically polarized cases, the court is divided along party lines. One can almost guarantee the decisions of those cases. There are no longer any swing Justices.
It is abundantly clear that the founding fathers made lifetime appointments to the Court to keep Justices further away from political influences than would have been the case for fixed-term appointments. Still, in today’s world, everything seems to be politically influenced, including the highest court in the nation. This nation wasn’t intended to be political like the King’s court in the 1770s. This nation’s founders tried hard to structure the new government to be as apolitical and balanced as possible. They were well aware of how power corrupts into absolute tyranny. They were especially mindful of the Supreme Court. This nation is a nation of laws, where justice is blind and equal for all (in principle). That was The Vision embodied into this nation’s Constitution of laws. The preamble to the Constitution captured the spirit and essence of the Constitution.
It is now a quarter of a millennium later, and the country has evolved into the antithesis of that Vision. It is extremely politically polarized and paralyzed, including the Supreme Court. There is the extreme right-leaning Republican party and the Extreme left-leaning Democratic party and a pure vacuum in between. All the moderates have long become brainwashed or disenfranchised by their party. Supreme Court nominations have become increasingly political based upon their political-legal decision history. The liberal justices have always been liberal, but the conservative justices are becoming more politically conservative and less constitutionally conservative. The Court is way out of balance with six politically conservative justices and three politically liberal justices.
So what can legally be done to bring more politically impartial justice to our Supreme Court? Currently, the President nominates a new Supreme Court Justice, which the Senate ratifies. I assume that this was decided to give equal votes to each state. But maybe the fairest way to confirm such an important lifetime appointment is to ratify Supreme Court justices by both the House and Senate just as Congress does for legislation. Another idea is that Presidents should be made to nominate someone belonging to the opposing party. That will result in more moderate Justices being nominated by the sitting President. There can be no perfect solutions because of politicians’ ability to work around just about any problem in their self-interests.