It all falls under court reform, the political viability isnt in question:

-amend the constution

-make a law restricting the courts ability to accept and decide cases

-pack the court

-retire aging justices

-have the senate subpoena clarence thomas and make him say why he won’t recuse himself from cases involving his billionaire friend

The only approach that ever works politically is the “all of the above” approach because as soon as you start taking things off the table the opposition can laser focus down the “reasonable options”. This isnt new:

thomas jefferson pioneered this strategy in the US where he kept agreeing slavery was immoral but it was “too hard” to free the slaves. In reality he loved owning people and designing his little slave town. The result of this tactic was it took a war to resolve slavery because politicians were too cowardly to address it.

What it means when something is too hard solve with politics, is that it needs to be solved with violence. What it doesn’t mean is that is that people will stop talking about it just because it “doesn’t seem politically viable”.

You have throw so many things at fox news and other propaganda outlets that they can’t just pick one and focus fire it into the ground with lies and fear. Something like an amendment will draw fire for sure but it lets all the other stuff sail by.