Either Kagan is spinning to attempt to maintain the influence of the Supreme Court or she just doesn't understand. The court has always been political or at least political during times of change. Even someone with only a general knowledge of history can come up with several examples. The Supreme Court in Roosevelt's era declared much of the New Deal unconstitutional. The truth is the court is political. Four justices almost always vote together and the other four almost always vote together. The 5-4 decisions swing because one justice moved right or left and decided which four justices would be the majority this time or in the minority the next.

Thing is, we could get a "moderate" that was moderate in the opposite way Kennedy was. Socially conservative and economically liberal and we'd have just as many 5-4 decisions. But they would all be different 5-4 decisions. Every previous 5-4 decision would be overturned. Would that be good? Would that be an example of a non-political court?

We call an issue political because we're still fighting over it. Once the issue is firmly resolved it's no longer political. Whether blacks should be slaves was a political issue. Whether women should vote was a political issue. A large amount of our current law that originated during the Roosevelt era was a political issue. No one except for  perhaps a tiny fringe element would consider any of those issue political today.

Most of the issues we argue about with the right are not political to me. They are part of my core values and obvious. I didn't come to my views through the democratic party. I don't believe because it's the party belief. I came to my beliefs and choose the party that most clearly fought for them. In that sense I'm not partisan. 

When I was in junior high school everyone insulted each other by calling them fags or cock suckers etc. It wasn't like I actually hated gay people or that I even considered that there were men who had sex with other men and that it was bad. Saying fag was like saying fuck you. It's not like I even considered a penis entering a vagina when I said fuck you. There was no moment of revelation when I stopped. There was no intellectual shift. I read something I can't remember what since it was so inconsequential. It could have been a couple of paragraphs in a science fiction novel that simply made the case that two men might want to have sex together and it didn't hurt those who didn't. They should be allowed to have sex and shouldn't get beat up or punished over it. It seemed obvious to me. They want to marry? Why not? It doesn't hurt me at all. There was no shift because I was a child and had no opinion before even though I was mocking my friends by calling them fags.

Honestly, almost all of this seems obvious to me. It's not really political for me. I came to my views almost spontaneously by reading and growing up. Sure there are a few tough spots when we get into the details but for the vast number of issues it seems obvious. And in the vast sweep of history obvious where we should go. We, the Supreme Court, our political leaders just need to decide whether we're going to go there and how fast.

If only you were on the Supreme Court so you could rule on these issues. From your post it really seems like you're qualified.