@Daz:
I'm admittedly not well-versed in the scope of influece the Supreme Court has (which as a concept seems absolutely insane to me -why consolidate that much power in so few people for so long?) - but can't the republicans just do what they did when a seat opened up during the Obama administration and basicallys teal it?
In theory you give them lifelong appointments so they're completely outside the day to day politics and aren't influenced by anything or loyal to anyone, including the person that appointed them.
Like a LOT of things the founders did, their system was designed for a multi-party system, they never imagined it would turn into a permanent two party system with one side able to steal a majority for decades despite being the minority.
They also never imagined it would become standard for everyone that got into that court to sit there for 30 years. The earliest ones were only in there for 5-15 years, the 30 year judge was an outlier. Out of the first 100 judges (and the first 190 years) 19 of them stayed on for more than 25 years, so 1 in 5 basically. Mostly the court moved a little quicker.
Meanwhile, every single judge since the 70's (we're at 14 total) has stayed on for 25+ years or death, whichever came first. ANd they REALLY never imagined one of those parties would be super complicit in holding literally everything hostage and outright stealing seats.
(Of course Anthony Kennedy's sudden retirement out of nowhere, literally a day before it was revealed his son worked at the bank that was helping Trump do dirty money is also an anomaly but he was there for 30 years)
Ginsburg is holding out for a Dem I think and might have retired under Obama if Scalia's death and then stolen seat didn't happen.
Constitution was meant to be a living document that got updated but we're suuuuper hesitant to fix gaping holes in the system for reasons.
