On this part of your post I can "almost" agree, but not quite.
Why should any judge's term be "renewed" by politicians? Keep the politicians out of it by an amendment to limit the terms of judicial appointments to a set number of years - say 12?
12 years would give a judge the "judicial independence" all judges say they need, while limiting the damages of any single judge to the 12 years of his term.
Term limits are automatic. They don't involve politicians with dubious agendas, and they mitigate the need for impeachment of activist judges (which Congress doesn't do anyway).
Term limits also act as an additional check on the judiciary. The present checks rely on Congress to do their job as authorized by the Constitution, and as we all know that doesn't happen.
I think some of your suggestions derive from a misunderstanding of the principles at work; or at least as the founders intended them to work.
There is no constitutional mandate, provision or basis for what is spoken of as a "living constitution". This is legal and judicial doublespeak for the political laziness of wanting to get around the only constitutional provisions for amending the constitution - the formal amendment process. The question is not whether or not the people's consensus of what the constitution says and what it means should evolve. The question is how should that evolution be moved from concept, to consensus to law. The only constitutional mandate for reflecting that evolution is the amendment process. It is how we brought in women's suffrage, lowering the voting age and many other "rights" and changes in the last century. Liberals abandoned the process and started using judicial fiat when they could not obtain democratic majorities to provide the democratic basis for constitutional change.
A constitution is not "law", it is the legal foundation for law. It is not intended to be minute, detailed policy and thus a provision of the constitution should not automatically be dispensed with by some arbitrary date, or you undermine all law that has used that provision for its foundation; you leave those laws hanging with no mandate for them in the constitution.
Courts, after any number of years (less and more) do revoke earlier precedents. Such actions should still be held to the clear intent of the constitution, but there is no good reason that they should be more revokable or less, by any number of years.
The idea of life-time appointment of judges went along with, and not contrary to judges ruling on the basis of original intent of the constitution. It is part of the concept of the intent of their independence; the reason for their independence; to hold congress and the executive to the original intent of the constitution, unless and until the democratic processes of the people changes the constitution. Original intent and judicial indpendence were expected to protect and uphold the constitution - not re-write it. The insulation from political influence, and particularly to immediate political influnce was to preserve and protect the intent of the constitution in spite of political opposition at the moment - political opposition that wants the constitution looked at differently but has not produced the national consensus to amend the constitution. It was intended to protect the provisions of the constitution from congress passing a law that violates the constitution, or from the executive ignoring a law passed by congress.
Having abandoned orginal intent, the current Supreme Court simply writes a new constitution, by judicial fiat one ruling at a time. It is not a "living constitution", it is a dead constitution that is replaced with the personal opinions of five out of nine judges.