WSU
You have the basic premise of my opinion correct.
Yes, there is an element of Alito's argument, that kicks the topic back down to the State, and there is inevitable that the States/Citizens will get into disputes, and the case will wind up back into the Supreme Court as it can be viewed/seen as a "right" involving "individual choice" that needs to be settled on a federal basis that would apply to all.
We have seen the beginnings of the dispute between States/Citizens with the aforementioned Texas law and proposed Missouri law. I am pretty sure that Roberts want to declare the Texas law unconstitutional based on standing of the parties and the unusual civil litigation approach designed into the law. That to me is a very plain interpretation of the constitution and the law and would be a subject for the federal courts to decide. I believe there is enough precedent to overturn State laws of this type.
I too am not seeking to engage in the partisan stuff. The court could decide that either way, a national law (either way) could be passed, an amendment would probably fail given the composition of the country at this point in time.
The point is that there is an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution that clearly suggests that this is a federal matter of such magnitude that leaving the subject to States determination is not in the best interest of the country as a whole. I am not necessarily an originalist, as I think it is a bit presumptuous (arrogant) for anyone to think that the founding fathers could possibly think of all scenarios that existed in the future. Frankly, the constitution does not take a lot of time to read, has an amendment process because of that very reason. It is a framework for government, and as evidenced by the first 10 amendments, a place for rights to be established.
| 
