[tacticalogic]

Scalia didn’t uphold Wickard in Raich, he based his concurrence on the effect of the necessary and proper clause on the commerce clause.

So did the majority opinion in Wickard.

[bone52]

The majority did not uphold the act based on the necessary and proper clause but rather on precedent that had somehow evolved from the necessary and proper clause. Scalia’s analysis is based on the question of what is necessary and proper. While he analizes categories used on prior cases, he does not base his decision on those categories or on the precedent, but rather on his analysis of what necessary and proper means.

There is a world of difference between these approaches.