While I agree with everything in your post, I'm responding just to add a few cents. Alito is a proto-fascist. I'll just put that out there. Moreover, he's a religionist, so there is a theocratic element to his "reasoning". In this case, I think, he enjoys the opportunity to inject a bit of chaos into the system. I believe there are enough cooler heads on the Court to avoid this becoming an issue, but he sees it as an opportunity to wreak havoc on the judicial scene. He LOVES striking down State laws (as well as federal ones). He's the most activist jurist at the Supreme Court. He'll probably get Thomas and Barrett to go along - it furthers his conservative agenda to throw another dart at Roberts - but I think that, ultimately, neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh will, and Roberts certainly not. It takes four to take a case.
What Alito is really up to is taking another opportunity to push Roberts. The Alito-Barrett-Thomas troika are trying to encourage conservative litigants to get cases to them so they can begin the reshaping of the legal landscape before sanity returns to the Court. They are looking for ways to get religion-based cases, anti-LGBT and anti-abortion cases, as well as voting rights cases to them so they can push their agenda. This is more of a signal to litigants and other jurists than a serious effort in this particular instance, but I would not be shocked if all the analysts and pundits are wrong - the 'safe harbor' deadline is an 1870's law, and he'd like nothing more than to obliterate it under an "originalist" interpretation. Don't underestimate his Machiavellian mind or his true anti-democratic bona fides. He just wants to know who might be along with him for the ride.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich