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.
You raise some good points. I hope to respond at a later time.
That's my point. The interpretation, even when left to the independent SCOTUS, is a political decision. It doesn't have to do with the actual meaning of the Constitution. To me, that's a fatal flaw. If you're going to decide the meaning of the Constitution in a political way, might there be a better way of doing it?
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.
Like what?
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.
I'm not saying it isn't possible. It was considered back in the day. I don't know if juries would make it better or worse, but I give you credit for at least looking at the problem, and trying to figure out a DIFFERENT way of doing it, because the way it's been done--the way the framers designed it--doesn't work.
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.
Scalia is an originalist, and he recently affirmed Wickard, writing for a liberal majority. Wickard is pure Marxist crap. I personally think the situation is far worse than you presume.