The history of partisanship on the Supreme Court goes back basically to the founding of the Court itself.

In the United States, the relationship between law, politics, and culture has historically been pretty neatly ordered. I would argue that in most cases, at least in a democracy, culture frames politics, and politics frame the law. But that's a very simple ordering, and its nuances have changed over time.

To look at the origins of partisanship on the Court, I think we basically need to look at the moment when the Court cemented itself as a co-equal branch of government- in Marbury (1803), when the Court more or less endowed itself with the power of judicial review. This established the power of the Court to check the actions of the other branches- a power which would be mostly cemented in McCulloch (1819), which established the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions. Without these two cases, many believe that the Court would have remained a relatively obscure institution- though not all believe that would be a bad thing. The legal scholar Jeremy Waldron has written interesting arguments (from a liberal perspective) against the powers of judicial review, arguing that it reduces the responsibility incumbent upon the legislature to govern seriously, and places too much power in the hands of the least (small-d) democratic organ of government.

Anyway, the decision in Marbury v. Madison, which so dramatically changed the trajectory of American law, was not an apolitical one. Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, knew that if the court ordered President Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver William Marbury's commission, they would simply refuse, and the Court would be revealed as toothless, delivering a win to the Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison. On the other hand, ruling for Madison would have absolved the new administration of any wrongdoing. In the end, Marshall ruled that Madison acted illegally, admonishing the administration and pleasing his fellow Federalists, but did not order Madison to deliver the commission, pleasing the Democratic-Republicans. However, he articulated his ruling to make clear that this was a matter on which the Court was qualified to rule, establishing its ability to check actions of the executive branch.

Federalists generally supported judicial review, while Democratic-Republicans, including Jefferson, generally saw it as overreach. Marshall, being a Federalist was eager for a chance to introduce judicial review, and used the Marbury case as political cover, delivering the Democratic-Republicans the result they wanted, while giving the Federalists the bigger prize- a more powerful Supreme Court.

Marshall was the last member of the Federalist Party appointed to the Supreme Court, but he was the ideological titan of the Court for decades. Long after the Federalists ceased to be electorally competitive, the Supreme Court under Marshall, who served until 1835 and remains the longest serving Chief Justice to this day, remained a relative bastion of key Federalist principles: strong national government, and broad judicial authority.

So, as you can see, party politics influenced the Court from the start, but the rise of "partisanship" on the court, as a contemporary phenomenon, parallels deepening partisanship in politics and society as a whole.

Until the great realignment began in the middle of the 20th century, there were progressive and conservative wings of both parties. Conservative Republicans allied with Southern Democrats, while liberal Republicans like Robert La Follette, Jack Javits, and Edward Brooke frequently allied with their Democratic counterparts to pass liberal legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Similarly, the "liberal" and "conservative" wings of the Supreme Court were not strictly divided along party lines, but they were still divided along ideological lines. Because of the nature of the Supreme Court, the ideological sorting of the Court took much longer than in the country as a whole. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who led perhaps the most liberal court in American history, was a Republican. Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter, who served on the Court until 2010 and 2009, respectively, were both Republicans as well, but fell reliably within the liberal wing of the court. Souter was a bit of a wild card, as he was expected to be a conservative when President George H.W. Bush appointed him. Tellingly, both resigned to allow a Democratic president to name their replacements.

On the Republican side, the influence of the Federalist Society (which ironically espouses views about federal power contrary to Marshall's) cannot be overlooked. The Federalist Society has built a robust infrastructure for young, ambitious, conservative lawyers seeking to advance their careers. Every sitting justice on the Supreme Court appointed by a Republican president is or has been a member of the Federalist Society. When Republican administrations make nominations to the federal judiciary, it is expected that they will have some affiliation with the Federalist Society. When George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers, his White House Counsel, to the Supreme Court, the nomination was sunk due to outcry from conservatives, as Miers was not a member of the Federalist Society, and thus her dedication to the conservative judicial view was questioned.

There's not really a Democratic equivalent to the Federalist Society, but it's expected that Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court will be reliably liberal on key Democratic issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, health care, and labor rights.

Candidly, I think we're in the midst of a realignment. Liberals have long seen the courts as the best way to score victories on tough civil liberties issues, but the sharp rightward swing of the federal judiciary under Trump has changed that. Given the structural biases of the Electoral College and the Senate, I don't think this is surprising- a majority of justices were appointed by Republican presidents first elected despite losing the popular vote. While I don't think that partisanship on the Court is going away anytime soon, I think that we're going to see more liberals espousing a more minimal role for the judiciary, on the grounds that it is the least representative branch of government.