Did you even read the article?
"...The majority opinion, written by John Paul Stevens and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy, noted precedents like the absurd 1942 decision Wickard v. Filburn, affirming that the federal government may prohibit a farmer from growing wheat for consumption on his own farm because of the indirect effect on prices in the regulated wheat market. ...
"Clarence Thomas sharply put it in his own dissenting opinion: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
You think that the five liberal idiots sprung the Wickard v. Filburn(1942) case on the dissenting judges by surprise, out of the blue, no warning, first time Thomas ever saw it? What are YOU smoking?
Judge Thomas needs NO "refresher course in Con Law"... in his opinion, he completely rejected the entire notion that "That same issue was decided by SCOTUS for the government and against the Constitution back during the FDR reign" and expresses that he believes that this issue, as well as many other erroneous decisions, need to be revisited in the light of our past 50 years experience with the unintentioned effects of those earlier poor decisions.
What Thomas said is true: "the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers". He sounds quite foolish, however when he poses it as an if/then statement.
It is not my fault that, by his own words Thomas sounds surprised by the holding in the 1942 decision.
You know, in the law judges are expected to be familiar with precedent and follow it - or give some compelling argument as to why it should not be followed. Thomas did neither.