Are there only limited checks on the Supreme Court which provide few restrictions on justices?

Are checks on judicial review only very limited?
Y:
Judicial Review allows court to have final say over President or Congress. The President and Congress must accept the court’s rulings with no checks on court’s majority opinion
Judicial Review is not explicitly stated in Constitution- it was self-awarded in Marbury v. Madison
N:
Court is limited by its constitutional scope. Whilst it has the final say, it can only address constitutional issues
This gives it a much narrower remit than that of the President and Congress, meaning that its power is restricted or checked well by the Constitution

Are the checks on their scope of interpretation only very limited?
Y:
Constitution is incredibly vague and therefore provides few limitations on Supreme Court’s ability to determine their own rulings
Court can become a policymaker, making decisions beyond purely constitutional issues and can ignore stare decisis
N:
Wording of Constitution is not completely elastic. There is a limit to how far the meaning can be stretched
The convention of stare decisis limits the ability of the court to make personal/biased decisions

Does the extent of their independence mean that checks on the court are very limited?
Y:
Justices have near complete independence from the president and Congress as they are appointed for life. The appointment process itself provides no realistic checks once a justice is in office. Justices can easily ignore the president, Congress or public opinion
N:
Justices can be impeached for high crimes or misdemeanours
Justices still operate in contemporary society and will be aware of dominant values, election results and views of president and Congress