A novel idea for Court Reform

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Supreme Court terms have lengthened far beyond what was originally envisaged.  Worse, we have no realistic prospect of fixing the problem of having justices server for multiple decades via constitutional amendment.  However, I got an idea that might solve the problem without having to amend Article III, but I'd like to see what those here who are actual lawyers think of my solution.

First, Congress has disestablished. merged, or transferred courts before.  Despite Article III, when the positions created by the Midnight Justices Act were eliminated, those appointed lost their offices because they no longer existed.

Second, the Constitution has nothing to say about the relationship between the Supreme and inferior Courts.  At one time, the Justices were required to ride circuit and preside over cases in the inferior Courts. What I propose is sort of a reverse of that procedure.
The proposal:
1. The United States Courts of Appeals and the current associate judgeships of the Supreme Court are replaced by a new set of Federal Appellate Courts.  All current judges of the prior courts are transferred to the new courts.  Any needed adjustments in the circuit boundaries would be done at this point. Each Federal Appellate Court would have one of its members filling a post (not the office, but post) of Assisting Judge to the Supreme Court for a fixed term of years. The post would be subject to Senate approval

2.  As a transitional measure, existing associate justices would automatically get that post for the rest of life (or until they go on senior status). Say for example, we set up 11 new appellate circuits of approximately equal size. Then we'd have Chief Justice Roberts and 11 assisting judges, and to keep things as an odd number, in a case that came from say the 4th circuit, we could establish that the assisting judge from that case would have no vote on the decision, tho obviously he should take part in the deliberations.

I realize politically this would be a major hot potato right now because of the increase in the Supreme Court size, but would such a scheme pass Constitutional muster? I think it does. While Article III specifies judges hold office for life, it doesn't specify that each level of court must have separate judgeships and in the past we've had judgeships that operated on multiple levels.

(Technically, I see no constitutional reason why the Chief Justice position couldn't be filled in some other manner than a dedicated judgeship, but I don't see that flying politically, so I kept that position as is.)