In the same article, since you clearly didn't read it to completion
In a 2018 blog post, US law professor Michael Dorfpoints out that it is possible (as opposed to plausible) for the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to utilize the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine to strike down the unequal apportionment in the United States Senate (which violates the one person, one vote principle); in the very same article, however, Dorf also expresses extreme skepticism that the US Supreme Court (or even a single justice on the US Supreme Court) would actually embrace the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine—at least anytime soon.
Ugh, Seriously. That’s the SAME paragraph I just quoted. He’s says it’s possible. Which meaning in legal terms an avenue theoretically exists. Doesn’t mean it actually does (nice not plausible).
The same paragraph I JUST quoted to you says not a single justice would get behind it. Stop reading for things that. Aren’t. There.
Your argument is without actual case law or merit. And in the legal system case law is everything. It’s never been done. And I would argue has slim to no chance of halo ending in the United States mainly by the way our Constitution is robustly set up.
You might as well be arguing for the existence of aliens. Could they exist? Sure and might. Do they? There’s no verified evidence of it actually happening.