How I feel about the Supreme court?

The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for settling disputes and interpreting the meaning of laws. Does the Supreme Court do this affectively? I feel that in some ways that it does. I feel that the Supreme Court has made many affective decisions throughout its history. Have all of these decisions been determined affectively? I think that this theory can be argued. Many questions can be posed about the Supreme Court. Should there be more men then woman? Should the views of the justices vary? Should there views be conservative or liberal? Should they have different or the same religious faiths? Should the members be of different ethnic backgrounds? Should there be more than just 9 members? Do any of these questions have any determination at all? In my opinion these views really do not have any threat to the Courts decision making as long as they are making their decisions based off of the determination of the law. When a chief justice becomes out of line and bases their decisions solely on their own opinion rather than the interpretation of the law than the Supreme Court can be found to be a little corrupt. This can open up the forum as to whether or not we need to have members of different backgrounds or do we just need to maybe get some fresh faces in the Supreme Court more often?
Elected members of the Supreme Court are elected for life. I feel like a life membership is a little flawed. I feel that as a justice ages their views of the law age with them and that they may not be as open to change as someone from a younger generation. If they put a limit on the term there would be different individuals revolving through the doors that would have a lot of fresh interpretation of the law.