'The Supreme Court is an increasingly politicised institution'. Discuss.

The key phrase in the question here is 'increasingly politicised institution', which must be defined. Thus, there should be a strong focus on the history of the levels of politicisation on the US Supreme Court. Two main points to suggest it is politicised- partisan appointments process and philosophy of judicial activism. Strong evidence to back up the idea that it has become more politicised includes statistics of the Senate votes in the appointments process, which are extremely partisan. As well as this, citing cases to explain the philosophy of judicial activism (e.g. Brown v Board of Education) adds to the overall judgement's credibility.
Two points to counter this- principle of judicial independence and the philosophy of judicial restraint. Philosophy of judicial restraint can be supported by the reduction of invalidated laws by the S.C (1969-86= 9%; 2005-14= 4%). Judicial independence can include evidence such as the protections of the court members, which is noticeable in the life tenure of their terms. Therefore, even if a President is unhappy with his selection to the court, he cannot remove them, henceforth limiting politicisation. But these must be evaluated with the reminder of how partisan the modern appointment process is, as well as recent cases of controversial outcomes (e.g. Gore v Bush (2000)). Judgement is that the court has become increasingly politicised.