Only in the profession of law does it seem perfectly fine, in fact more than fine, to come up with the wrong answer as long as you can provide a lengthy reason. Never before have I seem a bunch of law bloggers drool so much when trying to explain why justices voted the way they did in Raich v. Ashcroft. Here is the basic sum up... Federalism took a large blow... state's rights were crippled even further yesterday. The Supreme Court has removed any vestiges of the enumerated powers and made the commerce clause reign supreme.

From Scalia's &%!*@#! opinion:

Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce . . .The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are "reasonably adapted" to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.

So pray tell Justice Scalia... what type of economic activity doesn't fall under this category? I read several law professor's blogs. They're dancing around looking for other cases that explain why they did what they did, saying things like "This makes sense when you look at Foo v. Bar". It can be easily summed up by this one statement... They were wrong. A wrong decision made for a well explained reason is still a wrong decision.