I was going to try and reduce the paragraphs by bundling various things together, but I didn't exactly manage to shorten the post. But took out a few points below which are covered here.

Firstly, I'm absolutely not in favour of Roe being overturned, because as you rightly say, the price is too high. If I were a SC justice and had to rule on the topic, I would just bluntly say 'sure, its justification makes no legal sense, but nevertheless it's too important to overturn it'. Which is precisely why I could never be a justice in the first place. Anyway, it's an extremely impractical way of ensuring that right and one which comes at a steep price in terms of how it's contributed to the polarization of American politics.

Because it seems to me as an outsider that American politics are in a kind of death spiral of polarization, which I've no idea how they're supposed to get out of. Frankly, a non-violent breaking up of the country seems like one of the better possible long-term outcomes. A conservative majority on the SC might exacerbate that situation, but, I think, less so than a doomed attempt from Democrats to avoid it by packing the court, which would only invite further retaliation. If Democrats are going to spend a huge amount of political capital on making any kind of changes to the system, how about focusing on changes that could actually help in the long term. Something like the 18-year terms for SC justices that you mentioned, for instance - but then implement that now, not after you've made things worse.

And as for your general theme of a conservative minority forcing its will on a progressive majority, there is something to that of course, as we've discussed, but in the end it can only be resolved by progressives actually winning enough votes and using them in a sustainable way. If legislation must be passed or changes must be made that require constitutional amendments, then pass those amendments. And if, as it very much seems, constitutional amendments aren't possible to pass anymore because the states don't agree on anything anymore - then draw your conclusions accordingly.

I don't say I agree with the conservative views on the Second Amendment, but unlike abortion, it actually is mentioned in the Constitution.

It is and remains pretty much their ideal. Scalia was so popular because he was a strong defender of that philosophy. Thomas, same thing except without Scalia's eloquence and sense of humour. Barrett is being pushed forward for the same reason. It's not 'drinking the koolaid' to believe, as I do, that those people wouldn't just flush their life-long principles and legal theories down the toilet by striking down blue-state abortion laws on flimsy pretexts. Once again, they are not Trump or McConnell - they are not politicians at all. Although I will grant you that Kavanaugh very much sounded like one during his confirmation hearing and I don't particularly trust him to have changed much - still, now he's a justice and must act accordingly.

In both cases, I disagree with the decision and certainly with its outcome, but from what I've read of the reasoning, it's not completely absurd and seems like a legitimate legal position (obviously I'm not a lawyer).

When did I ever say anything of the sort? You're the one who's accusing the conservative half of the court of not giving a hoot about the law and only trying to push through their personal views on abortion or whatever other topic, by any means necessary. And I'm explaining why I don't believe that's the case.

Because that would have been equally creative and far-fetched.

The rancor and the Republicans' obsession is about the content, sure enough. The legal argument against it, however, isn't. And if a future conservative majority on the SC overturns it, that will be based on the legal argument.

Skipping a bunch of paragraphs here because they're basically covered above already.

You can read those opinions without me summarizing them for you, can't you?

Yeah, I'm not the one who started slinging words like 'utopian' around, so pot, kettle, black.

Until now, they may have strongly disagreed with various decisions of the SC and tried for decades to push it in a more conservative direction, but they haven't had any real reason to question its legitimacy. Democrats have, since the Garland thing in 2016, but then again Democrats also know that even if there had been a vote on Garland, the Republican majority in the Senate could just have voted not to confirm, with the same end result.

In the end, both in the Garland situation and now in the situation with RBG's seat, what McConnell is doing is logical enough, given the level of polarization in politics. And although it suits Democrats politically to gin up outrage about it, McConnell is right in saying that they would've done the same in his position - at least, if they had enough votes to do it, which is more difficult for Democrats since it's more of a big tent party than the GOP.

If Democrats gain the Senate now, eliminate the filibuster and then try to pack the court, I suppose you can argue it's still just a logical next step in the escalating political arms race. But still it would be a big escalation, much worse than simply repeating what McConnell did (of course, since SC nominations currently depend so much on pure chance, they're unlikely to get the chance to do precisely what he did).

I'll take your word for that, but still most red states have passed very restrictive laws, in case Roe gets overturned. I haven't done the research in detail but I don't believe that's all due to gerrymandering, though some of it may be.

I was talking specifically about 'majority democratic support' in particular states, since it's at the state level that abortion laws are normally written. The national view isn't that relevant because, barring a constitutional amendment, it's unlikely the conservatives on the SC would let a national abortion law stand, as they'd figure it's not under Congress' authority to decide on that.

Either - like I said, it's not black and white and different countries will draw the line in different places. For instance, over here in Belgium, which seems like a good compromise to me but then of course it would, the rule is basically that 'elective' abortions are allowed until 12 weeks, after that they're allowed only in case of health complications (physical or mental). Though they are debating to extend the 12 weeks to 18 now, the way it is in the Netherlands, which is somewhat controversial but seems likely to pass.

I think we agree that a not insignificant part of the fury and horror about abortion on the conservative side is based on those 'edge cases', both real ones and ludicrous scaremongering about babies being aborted at nine months. Because the way the system has worked in the USA is the SC suddenly allowed abortion out of the blue as a supposed constitutional right, then those 'legitimate restrictions on edge cases' had to be worked out. It might have been somewhat less rancorous if, like in Belgium and many other countries, abortion had been legalized with the debate about where to draw the 'legitimate restrictions' line from the start.

Fair enough.

I never said 'almost entirely' and I wasn't referring to the 2016 GOP primary. I'd guess that most of such single-issue voters would've preferred Ted Cruz at the time, or other more devout candidates. I'm talking about the people who will be voting for Trump now in the 2020 election - including some who aren't part of his base at all, perhaps even absolutely despise him, but will still vote for him over any Democrat because of abortion. Read basically any in-depth article interviewing Trump voters and you'll come across some examples of such people. In terms of numbers, if I remember right off the top of my head, we're talking about at least 20-25 percent of Republican voters for whom abortion is the big priority in every vote they cast. Yes, most of those same people would also care about things like supposed threats to their religious freedom, but not to the same extent - possibly because they know that such threats aren't actually all that real.