The Supreme Court is not meant to be partisan but the people who select the members base their selection on partisan beliefs to appeal to the partisan voters who put them in power. Regardless of whether an individual member subscribes to a partisan policy they are grilled and examined on their stands toward issues that are divided down party lines.
Anyone who reads through the Supreme Court decisions can see disagreement between the justices on how to read the law, from Scalia's textualism to Ginsburg's application of precedent, there is clear disagreement between each Justice on how to interpret laws, standing, burden of proof, etc. There is a partisan disagreement about how to read the law which gives the appearance of a partisan court, but Scalia has voted to keep flag burning legal and other justices have voted in ways that show a clear lack of partisan mindset.
No, I do not think that the Supreme Court is a partisan organization. As far as I can tell, there's not a whole lot of ideology going on there, aside from Scalia, who has an unhealthy obsession with conservatism. But he's balanced out by the other judges, who decide cases based on their merits and relevance to the Constitution.
I do not believe the Supreme Court is partisan, it is designed to maintain some form of neutral given the way judges are appointed. There are times when it may tend to lean in a more conservative light or a more liberal light, but these variations are never extreme enough to think that it is an ongoing problem.
I believe there are definitely groups who think alike on the Supreme Court, but as a whole I think there is a good mix of conservative, liberal and independent. That's why I think it's important to ensure that both Republican and Democrat presidents get a chance to appoint justices to the court.