I don't think so, at least not in the near future. From what I've gathered, Thomas is the only Justice who seems genuinely interested in actually shrinking the expanded commerce clause. Rehnquist has been content to stop the expansion without actually turning anything back, and I don't think that Scalia has objected to that stance.
then why would [Scalia] not also seek to return such a regulatory power as weed-growing to the states?
Because the Bush administration is asking him not to. And that request carries a lot of weight, imo.
On the bright side, when it comes to predicting what the Court's going to do, I'm quite often way off base.
Well, I guess I'll have to hang my hopes on that, then. I've been poking around some of the old source documents on "general welfare". Folks have driven truckloads of laws through that hole, plus the "interstate commerce" clause.
He left out Scalia. Interesting blow by blow account. Wow. That was cool. I can't ever tell what is going to happen based on the oral arguments.