[Noachian]

...Wickard vs. Filburn, he was growing wheat for his own consumption,...

The way I understand it, in W vs F, the farmer signed a federal contract to grow only so much wheat, and by growing more he violated that contract.

But, the people in California using medical marijuana signed nothing, so the Wickard precedent is a matter of apples and oranges and shouldn't have been used.

It seems that the SC is grasping for straws, in this case, to involve itself into states rights. A clear violation of the 10th Amendment.

[JAWs]

So there was a contractual dimension as well. Should have known. Actually, the SC had actually found limits to the CC, mostly in criminal cases... the Gun Free School Zone law was unconstitutional, for example, because the CC's authority did not stretch that far.

[NJ_gent]

"It seems that the SC is grasping for straws, in this case, to involve itself into states rights. A clear violation of the 10th Amendment."

Agreed. In my opinion, it should have deferred to the state's supreme court and stated loudly that it holds no jurisdiction over the case. SCOTUS had no business getting involved in this case to begin with, let alone ruling in favor of the Federal government.