[Sam Cree]

I'm sort of cringing at veering off on a discussion of either the Commerce Clause or the marijuana question, but while you are correct that Scalia wasn't actually legislating, my argument is that he was using the Commerce Clause too liberally, extending it beyond its meaning, which does IMO make him an activist at least in that case.

[Mojave]

my argument is that he was using the Commerce Clause too liberally

I disagree. And he rejected Angel's demand that the court impose her preferences on the people of California.

[robertpaulsen]

"my argument is that he was using the Commerce Clause too liberally'

Scalia cited precedent going back to 1838. Plus, this case was very similar to Wickard v. Filburn.

I cannot see the judicial activism that you're hinting at.