The issue is, has been, and will continue to be: the People vs the State. Before the framers were even born, the English civil war resolved the issue - via force of arms - in favor of the people over the monarch.
When we read the Constitution, we should not dismiss the importance that Art I (which creates Congress) is both the longest and most detailed section. The people's representatives have primacy over both the executive and judiciary.
While the executive has fairly wide latitude operating under the laws established by Congress, the judiciary is circumscribed by both the constitution and congressional prerogative.
It is Congress aka We the People who have ultimate authority over both the president and court system. We can determine what and what they cannot involve themselves with. This is our power and is the lawful, as well as logical means to resolving judicial overreach.
The way to push reform is to test the limits of the current arrangement. That's exactly what Trump is doing with his EO. It will resolve once and for all whether the People, with congressional delegation to the executive to carry out the execution of its will, is the sole determinant of national security.
Today's Congress is not going eliminate the myriad inferior federal courts below the SC.
Here is an interesting essay from the Heritage Foundation on how the inferior courts have changed since the first Judiciary Act of 1789.
So why bother participating in parlor room games?
Why not? It's no different than saying the states will never call for an Article V convention for proposing amendments, so why bother talking about it.
-PJ