I hear the words "balance" and "swing vote" being bantered about a lot, including in this thread, as if that is of any significance whatsoever. These words suggest that there is some sort of equivalence between the activist "living constitution" justices who rule based upon desired outcome, and the originalist / textualist justices who rule based upon what the law actually says and, in the case of ambiguity, upon the intent of the drafters.
Those aren't the same thing. The Court isn't supposed to be divided between "liberal justices" and "conservative justices." This is not the legislature. The Court should have nine men and women who impartially interpret the law based upon what it says and what the drafters intended, not invent law based upon ideology.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-balanced-supreme-court-isnt-the-point
So a balanced court shouldn't be the goal, but the goal should be a group of justices that agree with you 
I think everyone should at least be able to agree that judges ought to be interpreting the law impartially, based first and foremost on the text, without regard to desired outcome. Impartial judgment is sort of the cornerstone of our justice system. We should all be able to agree that our Constitution deliberately divided power among three branches and reserved the power to make law to the Legislature.
This isn't controversial stuff, or it shouldn't be. Somehow liberals are shocked by this. They are waking up with a massive hangover, realizing that they may not be able to rely upon judges to advance their policies and instead need to go through the ordinary legislative channels.
It's very easy for someone like you or I to hide behind this shield, since we don't belong to any groups that have historically suffered from animus and political powerlessness. Here's the truth: The machinery of democracy does not result in all people being regarded equally under the law. That's because we are a country filled with shitheads, and their representatives need their votes. I take it you disagree with the Supreme Court deciding to operate as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority--a project it has engaged in for 100 years. I, however, have come to accept that it is good and necessary within certain boundaries.
That bulwark against legislative tyranny of the majority is called the Constitution, you dumbshit. 
But the Constitution has its limits and judges don’t get to just concoct new rights to mete out their version of social justice.
The Constitution is the bulwark, and it is precisely the role of the judiciary to interpret it. Chief Justice Marshall in 1803:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
I'm assuming you've read the Constitution, so you know that it's remarkably brief. Again, Marshall also writing in Marbury: "In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a
constitution we are expounding." Many modern constitutions are remarkably long and indeed attempt to codify with specificity the precise boundaries of acceptable government action. Ours--the oldest written constitution--does not. Instead, the Framers used broad strokes to secure rough justice while leaving room for future generations to smooth out the contours. It doesn't bear the hallmarks of technical, statutory law--either then or now. It is written in plain English. Edmund Randolph, who was present at the constitutional convention and provided the framework for the first draft, wrote:
In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:
1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and
2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the several constitutions of the several states. For the construction of a constitution necessarily differs from that of law...
Your boy Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1816 letter:
But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Oliver Wendell Homes in Missouri v. Holland (1920):
With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether (the statute) is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved.
James Madison, responsible for penning the final draft of the Constitution, wrote concurrently:
If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.
The Constitution mentions in broad terms things like "freedom of speech," "right of the people to be secure," "due process of law," "right to a speedy and public trial," right to "assistance of counsel," "excessive bail," "excessive fines," "cruel and unusual punishment," and that's just a sampling from the first eight Amendments. Those terms aren't defined. They are intentionally vague to leave room for judgment. They weren't stupid. They were aware that they were drafting a constitution--not a treatise or statute.
