[B Knotts]

I think he's slapping them with a little stare decisis here.

He's saying (as far as I can tell): "Look...not seven months ago, the court decided that the commerce clause can be stretched so far as to allow the regulation of the intrastate possession of marijuana."

"Fine...that's settled law...but you cannot now turn around and say that states' rights somehow compels the court to decide for a particular interpretation (one limiting executive authority) of part of the same law."

[dirtboy]

I agree he was right to slap them over their flip-flop. But is that grounds for dissent? If he dissented with them in Raich and then dissents again when they flip-flop Raich, isn't he flip-flopping himself?