That only goes so far. We can see how difficult it is to do. Plus, even conservative judges only go so far when it comes to overturning well-established precedent. The amount of cases, and the overall significance of them, that would have to be overturned would represent a revolution and wouldn't be tolerated, by the people or their elected officials.
SCOTUS was intended by the framers to be a trial court. land might scare 'em straight if packing doesn't.
A trial court without a jury? They debated having a jury on the supreme court, but it didn't take. The Federal Court decides, finally, all questions of law arising under the Constitution. They haven't usurped authority. They have executed authority. The quarrel is the broadness of their interpretations. But there's nothing in the Constitution telling them HOW they must decide cases===separation of powers.
Far enough. FDR's threat alone forced SCOTUS to buckle and sign off on large pieces of previously unconstitutional legislation, which addresses difficulty, if you're popular enough it's not so difficult.
The amount of cases, and the overall significance of them, that would have to be overturned would represent a revolution and wouldn't be tolerated, by the people or their elected officials.
Assuming the packed majority is stupid RINOs. Conservatives don't have to act like DemoRats just because they have power. Conservatives would be wise enough to just overturn the nation killing Marxist crap at first. True, the anarchists would riot just as they do all the time, now. The court reformation would have huge support of normal citizens.
A trial court without a jury?
Why would you think that SCOTUS would not or could not seat a jury when required by the Constitution? They would do so in the same manner as any other Federal court.
A campaign such as this is a legal and reasonable way to reign in an out of control tyrannical court. Other methods are not necessarily so obviously legal, and you can be sure that those with power and the anti American Marxists they coddle and protect, will hurl any charge to derail the restoration of an originalist court. The method should be obviously legal to debunk said charges in advance.