We seem to be having a basic "problem of communication" here....
How on earth do you expect anyone to take your "argument" seriously — when you don't bother to explain it? If you have a problem with anything I wrote, please show how it is invalid, based on your analytical logic and experience.
You can't just swagger into a civil public debate and begin the defense of your argument or point of view with the statement — "The ruling did not really kill the abuse of the Commerce Clause" — by asserting that my analysis is "very very wrong." Which is simply to dismiss what I was saying, evidently from your POV that I must be a moron if I disagree with you or Rush or whomsoever.
I listened to Rush's show for one hour yesterday, and didn't catch a hint of your problem. Of course, it is a three-hour show; so maybe I missed the explosive part — that SCCJ Roberts rolled over and died for progressive causes in this ruling.
Or maybe Rush never said any such thing.
Anynoot, in a civil public debate, at this point it is incumbent on YOU to show the defects of my reasoning, which is based on logic and direct experience.
At least, those would be the "rules" in the world I live in.
To put it crudely, in civil debate, ad hominum attack is not a winning strategy. At least, not in the world I live in.
Read this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/justice_roberts_pleads_lie_to_me.html
I am very deep into the public discourse on this issue, beyond what I respond to your posts. For the record, those who agree with my point of view include Rush, Levin, Steyn, Scalia. They are all way beyond this little Town Hall writer ette.