Multiple outlets discuss proposals for addressing perceived problems with the U.S. Supreme Court by using “popular constitutionalism.” Both sources frame their discussion as a thought experiment and emphasize the idea of building legal meaning outside traditional institutional channels. One outlet presents the topic as a way to “fix a Supreme Court” that some describe as “gone off the rails,” while another argues that there is a “fix” available, but that it requires sustained follow-through. In both accounts, the proposed approach relies on local, grassroots engagement with constitutional interpretation—described as “organic” and “farm-to-table” in tone by one source, and as “popular constitutionalism” in both. The articles do not identify specific legislative or administrative steps in the provided text, nor do they attribute claims to particular evidence or case outcomes. Instead, they focus on the conceptual question of how constitutional meaning could be made through participatory practices, and on whether that process could function as a corrective mechanism in the face of legitimacy or performance concerns about the Court.