Their decision may be right through the lens of the initial ruling some 50 years ago, and perhaps through the acknowledgement of this being a divisive issue. However, it is at best hypocrisy of the court itself, and at worst, a devastating blow to one of the worlds worst healthcare systems.
This ruling in particular has be viewed through a wider scope, and not just the narrow lens of "people are divisive".
Their recent ruling interfering with New York states own policy on concealed carries best represents the courts hypocrisy - if a state makes a ruling and has a certain level of autonomy and power to do so, why is the SC overruling them here when its nearly just as divisive as abortion?
Additionally - the ruling is made within a very narrow scope, against common scientific and healthcare advice. It's also likely the ruling was made with strong bias and in bad favor as many of the justices themselves are not duly qualified to sit on the bench which they sit, and the ruling subsequently falls in line with a serious of previously strongly conservative rulings that defy prior precedent and the SC's own interpretation of autonomy, law, and previous rulings.
There is really no way to justify their ruling.
Polarization is a bit of mysterious character because we see a very strong, radical right wing forcing changes down to the county level in terms of gerrymandering, up to the level of presidential cabinet where federal crimes were committed without any consequence.
We don't hear of Democrats who, after losing a race complain of fraud and refuse to accept the results. That's a very Republican thing to do.
So, polarization is mysterious because there is a fast growing anti-intellectual, religious radicalism spirit and a fairly unchanged "populist" left wing. I.e. the left is mostly unchanged from 20 years ago, whereas the right has gone through a sharp and dramatic change in the same period.