A No-Win SCOTUS Question For Trump?

Word is that he's thinking Amy Coney Barrett. 

   This will be taken by progressives (and what remains of liberals) as a broadside against abortion--which it may well be. 

And abortion motivates Dems way more than it motivates Pubs. There's almost no such thing as a pro-life Democrat anymore, whereas there seem to be quite a few pro-choice Republicans. Just seems like a bad gamble so close to the election.

   But, IMO, we can't afford a Harris- (or maybe even Biden-!)appointed Supreme. I default to libertarianism on abortion. But I don't think that even losing Roe--which I don't think is going to happen--would be a disaster. It'd just mean that some red states would outlaw it--and Planned Parenthood et al. would set up services to transport women from those states to blue states. 

   Given the unhinging of the progressive left, we just can't risk the kind of appointment we'd likely get right now. Even in general, I've gone--for now at least--over to the side of textualists. All textualist justices do is force us to actually pass laws to effect change--rather than relying on judges to, in effect, rewrite old laws. So textualists aren't a disaster. Whereas activist "living Constitution" types are pretty commonly disastrous.