These are unavoidable aspects of being a supreme court judge, since you are also deciding what the law means and entails.
Consider that sanders made it a litmus test for his supreme court nominees to overrule an unpopular court decision. Most judges would avoid at a politician demanding this, as it defeats the purpose of a judiciary.
They may have very strong views on what framework a judge should use to interpret the law, but they usually will not push their own political agenda.
I can't point you to specific cases - I can only say that what has really stood out to me is that the justices do mostly seem to have well-defined interpretive frameworks, and that they work from those.
I can think of an exception, but my experience has generally been that it's the case.
Could you explain what you actually mean?
Our justice system is a sovereign power and doesn't depend on executive power, but is completely independent from it.