I do not agree that is so, personally.

It is hardly sufficient to call him a 'fervent State's Rights proponent', or present him as an eloquent spokesman for the idea 'the Commerce Clause must be reined in to keep the Federal government's claws out of things best left to the states', though. It is not even clear he thought ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional would be a proper decision, rather than a desirable one; a decision actually in accord with the meaning of the Commerce Clause, and not merely one which would produce his preferred result. I always thought the case so clear on the grounds of the taxing authority that the Commerce Clause had no real relevance.

I do think, though, that a number of people felt, and still feel, something is a little off about being told they must purchase a specific product from a commercial enterprise, and I have some sympathy for that view, whatever my feelings on it as a question of policy, and political necessity in present conditions, might be.

My preference was, and remains, 'MediCare For All', with acceptance of MediCare patients a condition of holding a license to practice medicine anywhere in the United States, which I think is well within the legitimate reach of the Commerce Clause....