Questioning the Actions of the Supreme Court

In reading Chapter 9 from the textbook, it became very evident that throughout the 19th century, political parties fought for control over different parts of the federal government through trying to gain control over states they could either declare as free (which would support industry and trade like in the north) or slave (which would support farming and agriculture like the south) states. Yet, even though most northern and southern states accepted the fact that African-Americans could have rights in non-slave states such as New York and Illinois, groups still fought to pacify and oppress these people in anyway they could: one of these groups seemingly being the Supreme Court. In 1846, Missouri slaves Dred and Harriet Scott went to fight for their freedom in a local court because they believed that because they lived in a free state, they didn't have to continue being slaves for a white man. Yet, even though this made sense as most states accepted to some degree that African-Americans had the right to be free in non-slave states, this case ended up becoming so complex that it kept getting escalated until it reached the Supreme Court 10 years later. During this case of Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney claimed that according to the Fifth Amendment, they were both property to their owner, and that it would be unconstitutional to allow any slave to be free if they were owned by another within the United States. He also claimed that even though the Constitution stated that "all men are created equal," these words were "too general" which is why he believed that the obvious conclusion from this statement was that "the enslaved African race were not intended to be included." And this got me wondering, to what extent can the Judicial System interpret the words of the Constitution? Because in this case, it's very apparent that Justice Taney is inferring a completely different meaning of the Constitution than what was clearly written through fabricating implications within the text. Can members of the Supreme Court use their own personal biases to pick out meanings from the Constitution that would only support their political opinions? And if they were to do so, would they even get impeached by Congress if the majority of the Senate agreed with their political views? In this situation, Justice Taney as well as the 6 other justices who voted with him were able to get away with their questionable decision because the majority of the senate was comprised of Democrats, which prevented them from trying to impeach them. Yet, if something like this were to happen today (where a political party controlled two branches of government like Congress and the Judicial Branch), would the people let it happen?