Without looking at my handy dandy pocket Constitution on my desk, I think it would take a Constitutional Amendment to limit their terms and/or enforce them to judge by "original intent", which is THE biggest problem with the Supreme Court and State courts regarding their own State Constitutions, not to mention appellate regional courts. Talk about a run on sentence.
There is no solution other than a Constitutional Amendment, and I'm all for it. The USSC has TOO much power and so often make their decisions within their own bias and past ill-conceived precedence rather than "original intent".
Personally, I think the the Executive Branch should have more limitations even more than the Judiciary Branch. Third on my list after "term limits" and "reduced Congressional sessions.
The SCOTUS is described in the constitution, but all other federal judges, and the law, and how they apply the law, are left up to congress.
It was only in 1810, with the Marbury v. Madison decision, that the SCOTUS decided it could rule laws as unconstitutional.
But the one way in which congress could impact the SCOTUS relatively quickly, is by enlarging it. FDR threatened to do so when the SCOTUS rejected much of his early New Deal. Importantly, such an enlargement is properly done by saying that the *next* president can appoint two more justices, for example.
There is one structural adjustment that is obvious. There are currently 13 courts of appeal, 11 for the states, one for D.C., and one for the Federal Circuit, created in 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
However, the 9th circuit needs to be split in half, and the other need some demographic rearrangement.
Behind the scenes, it would be a great opportunity to retire a bunch of the worst of the federal judges.