I'd rank Raich way up there too: Raich's reasoning was basically even though we said that intrastate commerce could be regulated by congress if it impacted interstate commerce, if there isn't interstate commerce, we can still regulate intrastate commerce.
(See the logical nullity there?) Raich was a unjust justification of the War on Drugs, just as Wickard was for congressional-regulation (American Fascism).
But their golden goose
of precedent really is Roe v. Wade, it proved that the States would accept that they could make something up out of whole cloth (a right to privacy, which doesn't touch on the real issue in the case [murder, and the ability of the States to define and prosecute it]) and use it to invalidate virtually every state's law if they wished. — look, also, at how this right to privacy does not apply to general interactions with police, or the TSA, or the NSA, or the ACA… no, it only applies to abortion.
Wickard is one that has been milked and derived from for a long time; I believe that they could find a way to overturn it and say that all decisions based on it are still valid, but that's because Raich and ACA prove how intellectually dishonest and power-mad they really are.
My intent was to express what I thought to be a terrible decision process on the part of Chief Justice Roberts. It was quite convoluted, I thought. I believe you have come up with two laws whose outcomes were worse than the ObamaCare ruling will cause, although it will certainly be bad.
You touched on some good points there. You’re obviously more qualified than I am to discuss them, so I’ll let your comments stand. I agree with them as far as that goes.