Like most RuPaulians you simply repeat yourselves.
Everything you just repeated was refuted in earlier posts.
Stick to the cult of Paul, where ignorance is unchallenged.
...and try not getting caught toking or you’ll get a life lesson in the Constitution...lol.
A brief slow mo for you
1)Thomas’ opinion was on the losing side.
2) Thomas’ rationale affirms the Commerce clause in general, while disputing only a specific and small exception as described by Thomas.
Wrong.
Everything you just repeated was refuted in earlier posts.
Wrong again.
1)Thomas’ opinion was on the losing side.
Was his opinion correct? (As I asked and you failed to answer: Don't tell me you think the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says that it says? Do you think that about, say, Roe v Wade or Lawrence v Texas?)
2) Thomas’ rationale affirms the Commerce clause in general, while disputing only a specific and small exception as described by Thomas.
The exception is "local cultivation and consumption of marijuana;" nothing in the opinion supports your claim that it's "small."