I prefaced my comments on Hudson's views on the commerce clause by writing "reading through the entire decision…" making it clear that my analysis of his views were based on what he wrote in that decision. Common sense should inform you that I'm not trying to crawl around inside the man's mind or assume that I know his personal views. My analysis is based on the decision and in that decision, he accepts an expanded view of the commerce clause and takes no issue with Wickard. That's the only thing relevant to the discussion, because as you rightly point out, he's bound by precedent.

In fact, you have swerved into an important truth – that we cannot rely solely on the federal judiciary to protect the people from unconstitutional acts. Am I "glad" that he ruled as he did? Sure, and I think I made that point clear. But does it really do anything to stop the federal government from unconstitutionally regulating health care in every other way except requiring the insurance mandate? No, it does not. You basically just made my point for me and explained why I shouldn't be all that happy…because this ruling does not and can not change the underlying rational for what I view as an unconstitutional federal overreach.

So forgive me if I don't jump up and down and do a little dance. The whole point of the article is to point out the futility of pinning our hopes on a branch of the federal government to check the expansion of the federal government.