Scalia basically said that Thomas was right but it would be too chaotic to go back to the Constitution.
His concurrence tried to justify the majority decision. He wrote it because the majority opinion failed to successfully refute the sound constitutional arguments put forth in the dissents by Thomas and O'Connor. Scalia, however, failed to successfully refute the dissenting arguments. His argument is pathetic and his stretching of the commerce clause has no basis in original intent jurisprudence. On this case, Scalia is a huge disappoint to those of us who believe in original intent/strict construction/9th and 10th amendments.
That's a backwards way of admiting they betrayed their oath to the U.S. Constitution.