[Ken H]

In his opinion, Scalia quoted Chief Justice John Marshall from McCulloch v. Maryland, but maybe he should have looked at the stare decisis established by Marshall in Gibbons:

____________________________________________

"They [inspection laws] form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embraces everything within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the general government: all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."

"No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."

That is stare decisis, isn't it?

Scalia: In the CSA, Congress has undertaken to extinguish the interstate market in Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana.

The Commerce Clause unquestionably permits this.

Am I mistaken, or did he just endorse Wickard, not as stare decisis, but as his own judicial philosophy?

[Ken H]

He said interstate, so he did not endorse Wickard in that statement.

[P_A_I]

Scalia:

"In the CSA, Congress has undertaken to extinguish the interstate market in Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana.
The Commerce Clause unquestionably permits this."

Ken H:

Am I mistaken, or did he just endorse Wickard, not as stare decisis, but as his own judicial philosophy?

---

Its not just an endorsement. -- In effect Scalia decrees ["unquestionably"] that Congress has the power to "extinguish" a market.

He's blatantly 'begging' that Constitutional question. -- Does Congress have the power to prohibit? - the power to pass fiat 'Acts' that control substances, objects, and/or behaviors?

Well, its certainly 'unquestionable' that a socialistic majority of the USSC has that philosophy.

What say you?