You're never going to not have "conservative" judges on the bench. Some lawyers believe that you should interpret the law to fit the current morality of the era. (the progressive judges) Others think that you have to interpret the law based on what the original people who drafted the law intended (the conservative judges). You need judges on both sides of this issue to have a functioning justice system.

If laws change too quickly and are too progressive, then they'll cease to have meaning. It will erode public trust in the justice system if one day something's illegal, then the next day it's not, then the next day it is. But if laws never change at all, then the law will start to diverge from what people today believe is morally right.

The Supreme Court is one of the only political institutions in the United States that is currently working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended it to. The whole point is that sometimes we'll have a conservative majority, and other times a progressive majority. This lets the law evolve slowly and in a stable manner.

I mention all this because I'm starting to see people post the opinion that we need to drastically reform the way the Supreme Court operates, for example, by imposing term limits. This is a truly shit idea. Supreme Court justices have life terms so they're incentivized to issue opinions on the merits. People like Gorsuch - a Trump appointee - can issue opinions that protect LGBT rights in the workplace because they're not worried about pissing off the GOP for fear that they'll lose their cushy, post-SCOTUS lobbying job. The whole point is to try and remove partisan politics from the courts, not make it more partisan.