I can't recommend an overly strong Supreme Court system. It tends to result in judges, appointed for life, that essentially end up legislating from the bench. We even had the Supreme Court decide a Presidential election result once, back in the year 2000.
The problem with the US system seems to be that Congress is increasingly impotent, judges care more about promoting their own political agenda than interpreting the law impartially, and the President has too much power via executive agencies to do whatever he wants unilaterally.
Given that judicial activism is inevitable in this day and age, judges should be elected and have terms. They shouldn't be appointed for life. It means any president that gets to fill a vacancy gets to control the political direction of the country in this indirect manner until his appointee dies or quits. That seems a little ridiculous...
The danger with the court is that if the justices currently sitting have one set of political values, and the people vote for another... then the justices can just poke around and use lawyer logic to declare everything they don't like unconstitutional. This happens over and over, and the way in which certain laws get overturned often forces a specific interpretation of the constitution to become de facto law.