I suppose due to precedent that decision can't be overturned since it was over 60 years ago. But it still blows my mind that the Court ruled that explicitly not engaging in interstate commerce, or commerce of any kind, is in itself, interstate commerce.

Supreme Court precedent is much more fluid than that, though it operates on cycles measured in decades. Stare decisis doesn't mean that precedent can't be overturned, but that it takes a damn good reason to do so. Look at the date on the Wickard decision (1942). It was a World War II case, decided when the government was gearing up for a war that would ultimately eat up almost a third of US GDP (federal spending spiked from 20% of GDP before and after the war to well over 50%).

It is extremely unlikely that it would be upheld today. Indeed, I tend to think of the Roberts court as having overruled Wickard sub silentio in the Obamacare opinion. The Roberts court rejected the Commerce Clause justification for the individual mandate (the government had argued that not buying insurance effected interstate commerce). It was ultimately upheld on different grounds (that the government had power to tax people who didn't purchase insurance).

> I suppose due to precedent that decision can't be overturned since it was over 60 years ago.

It can be and the Supreme Court has done it before, but you will need a slate of judges that will willingly curtail their own reach and that of the rest of the federal government. Good luck with that.

Uh, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have spent collectively two decades scaling back all the power the liberal courts decided for themselves in the 1960's and 1970's.

The Court, like many other parts of the government, has systematically increased its power and influence over the years.

No matter what your opinion is on the recent gay marriage rulings, you should read the dissenting opinions that warn of the new power the court has ruled for itself through the decisions.

Scalia’s dissent is wonderfully written and very much worth reading (whether or not you agree with him, as you say). I cannot offer the same praise for the other two.

Better yet, don't - they're talking a load of self-serving bullshit. Scalia and the other justices who wrote dissenting opinions in that case were quite happy to overrule Congress a day earlier and declare that the Voting Rights Act no longer necessary. Their interest in restricting the reach of the Supreme Court only applies to overturning laws they don't like.