Well, you could have carried that one step further -- the reason that the Individual Mandate will be declared unconstitutional in two days, is precisely because the majority knows that to not do so would be to grant the Commerce Clause unlimited power, which it most decidedly was not meant to do.
This is the reason Bobo is so chuffed -- now we will have a blue-line limit on the Commerce Clause, and thusly a limit on everything the Left had hoped to ram through that loophole.
I'm sorry but such a decision would run quite counter to the preceding trend (my point) and there is the altogether disturbing recent case of Kelo wherein the Court allowed imagination to be the justification for using eminent domain... and further corroborated with this recent AZ decision.
From Scalia's dissent:
So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause— which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.
[...]
Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.
It's so plainly laid out there that one wonders how the opposing side (the majority) could be logically and legally consistent; yet it is now "legal fact" that those very positions have been declared by the court.