Unconscionable, yes. Necessary, most likely. There are times when someone must wear the mantle of villain in order to be the hero who can actually do what is needed.

Also, the unconscionability of the act does squarely depend on one’s philosophical definition of “justice”. The conscionability of any decision is predicated on how one values the world around them. Personally, I lean towards a form of altruistic utilitarianism. As long as an act does not genuinely do harm, and it is for the benefit of the majority of people, it is good. If an act is harmful to some, but benefits the whole, it is justifiable. If an act harms many, but benefits few, it is unconscionable.

As for what OP said, I believe he mispoke or misunderstood the ramifications of the word “dissolve” in this context. What he described is not a dissolution of SCOTUS, but a forced full reset. Dissolution would be to eliminate it as one of the 3 federal houses of government, leaving only the Presidency and Congress to govern. Removing all members and pursuing filling the seats as the constitution dictates would not dissolve SCOTUS. It would be the same resultant event sequence if something happened and all of the justices died simultaneously. All sitting justicesl being replaced by the Democratic process of the country would be fine, and indeed, would be a good thing. As much as I love Sotomayor and Kagen, removing them would be necessary for it to not be a political action, but one which recognizes that the body is no longer able to do its sworn duty in its current state and it needs replaced.