When it comes to drugs, a lot of conservatives sell out; witness the folks in the other thread who are cheering the decision despite the fact that it totally stomps all over states' rights.
I guess Scalia falls into this category; when it comes to guns ---
It would be interesting to see a Scalia opinion on CA's "states right" to ban assault weapons.
-- Two bits he would cheer them on.
I have to agree with the driven by drug war comment. Notably absent in posts on the Gonzales decision is contrast with the Inspector case, also today, applying ADA law to foreign registry cruise ships. Rehnquist and O'Conner(!) dissented on both, each was an application of the Commerce Clause. Where was Scalia in the Gonzales case, and why did Thomas not join Scalia concerning cruise ships. Today was a big disappointment, Thomas and Scalia are my personal favorites as SCOTUS Justices
The Commerce Clause has been the major vehicle for federal intrusion into state matters since the New Deal. The lesson to me is that it is not only liberal judges who are willing to sacrifice Constitutional principle to a personal view of the particular case before them.
On any level, I think Scalia erred. I utterly fail to see where Ms. Raich's use of homegrown pot in California to relieve her pain (or for that matter, just to catch a buzz) affects my rights in Texas. Similarly, so long as the cruise line did not exaggerate and misrepresent the handicapped access on board, (an issue that could have been addressed under a totally different legal principle), why is this a matter for the nanny state to wade into?
The surprise of the day to me was O'Conner, two brownie points to her for consistency.