I try to stay out of most policy discussions and focus on the structure.
I am not opposed to changing the structure but I do think that we need to understand the structure before we change it so that our changes cause us to have a more admirable structure than whatever we might presently have.
For example, some people think that changes need to be made to the method by which Constitutional amendments are put into effect.
I have no problem with that idea. I may like or dislike a specific suggestion pertaining to what change is made but the general idea of changing the process is not something I oppose as long as we are trying to produce a better structure.
In 2011, there was a "liberal majority" on SCOTUS and people were talking about "a living constitution". Now there isn't a "liberal majority" and Ginsburg's health is troubling. People are no longer talking about "a living constitution".
Why Not? Because the idea was fundamentally flawed.
It would have turned five justices into an oligarchy which could alter the Constitution without the input of the people. The same people who were advocating that idea eight years ago would be horrified at the idea that five of the current majority of SCOTUS could change the Constitution in that manner.
They were not thinking about Structure.
Before 2017, anyone who talked about Structure was accused of using "code language." But the fact is that unless we have a Structure, we will be ruled by whims and not by a solid government.
Short-term policy changes may make the masses happy but those which destroy structure set precedents which can be then used by the opposite party when it replaces whatever party is currently in power.
That's why I don't like the way Executive Orders have been used in the last ten years. Executive Orders by any administration which attempt to circumvent the constitutional power of the legislative branch will have long term detrimental consequences to the structure of the national government.