Scalia said his opinion was not different from Stevens' in the Raich case, just perhaps more "nuanced." Uh huh.
Here's how I see it. Stevens' opinion is one huge long ramble that basically says Wickard=Raich over and over in every possible legal way. In doing so, Stevens filled the opinion with the name Wickard, anathema to conservatives. Scalia wanted a Raich opinion that was not completely filled with Wickard, so he wrote one, and stuck his lone reference to Wickard
down in a footnote.
His opinion was about the necessary and proper clause, a part of the Constitution, and not about private actors affecting commerce within their own state (or property). But how can regulation be "necessary and proper" without the aggregate substantial effects of those individuals? In other words, without Wickard? Nuanced my @$$. Scalia's opinion is derived from Wickard and falls apart without it, just like Stevens'. It just only says Wickard once. Very skillful writing.
Where is robertpaulsen when you need him to explain why all this is the only possible conservative thought?