It's demonstrated liberal tendency, medically and legally. In the medical sense, I believe it's right. From a practical, legal perpsective, after blithely making their ruling in Lawrence v. Texas tacitly endorsing the homosexual lifestyle, are they now supposed to deny the drug that alleviates "Slim's Disease", i.e. AIDS, as well as the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy when patients can't tolerate pills, not to mention certain patients with chronic pain, multiple sclerosis or glaucoma?
This time the feds are being challenged on the basis that the program does not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore, the feds have no constitutional authority to interfere.
In US vs Lopez, Justice Thomas wrote:
Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined.
If he sticks to his beliefs about substantial effects, he could end up being the swing vote.