Legal scholars fully acknowledge that every interpretation of the law is full of ambiguities and often even outright contradictions. Ginsburg and Scalia perfectly captured this phenomenon by writing beautiful opinions that came to totally different conclusions. Truth be told, this also reflects the state of the human mind, in which we actually make decisions emotionally and then blindly rationalize them as if emotions had nothing to do with the process. No! It all comes down to how we feel! Even for our Supreme Court Justices.
Unhappily, our feelings are often in unresolvable conflict... as they are now about the fundamental direction of the country. Obama wanted fundamental change (although his actual goals were inchoate). Those who were happy with their lives were leery of where he might go. Today, things are a lot more divided along these same lines. Regardless, the Supreme Court shall be the ultimate arbitrar on all our critical hot button issues, from central government administrative rule vs states' rights, to social dysphoria vs traditional behavioral patterns, to gun control vs the 2nd Amendment, to individual liberty vs collective well being... etc.
Personally, I would like Trump to send down his nomination and Biden to name who he would choose... and defer the Senate vote until after the election to give the people a chance to express their feelings.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism#:~:text=Legal%20realism%20is%20a%20naturalistic,against%20observations%20of%20the%20world.