Since we're playing Don Quixote again tonight, the problem with the Supreme Court isn't who's on it, or how big it is, or who has the majority. The problem is the safety valve for when it makes constitutional rulings that are out of step with democratic majorities is too sticky.

18 year terms won't fix this. (I used to believe this was the solution, but all it will do is make every presidential election even more of a proxy fight over SCOTUS.) Expanding the Supreme Court so the members can't all fit in the existing building won't fix this.

Jurisdiction stripping would just make things worse, as would other branches just ignoring decisions they consider wrong.

Either we need to find a way to go back to the era when constitutional amendments were feasible ways to update the Constitution, or...

build a realistic mechanism that allows the other branches of government to decide to overrule the court, but without those decisions being allowed to ossify themselves.

That doesn't have to look like Canada's "notwithstanding clause," but it'd be worth at least considering.

An override procedure with a 4-year sunset clause that requires an affirmative renewal at least once each presidential term through the ordinary legislative process would likely be a high enough bar to preclude most decisions from being overruled.

And, unless the majority opposed is a sustained one that can enact the same override over and over, election after election, such an override procedure usually would still let minority rights prevail in the long run.

Anyway, end of manifesto. Please go back to your regularly scheduled process of trying to fix America's problems without first looking at how any other country has solved similar ones previously.