[publiusF27]

Was Scalia in the majority on this decision?

Sort of. He wrote his own opinion concurring in the judgment, but for his own reasons. No one else joined him. Dissenters were O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Thomas. Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, which was right on the money IMHO. Look up Gonzalez vs Raich and read them for yourself if you want.

[Huck]

Scalia was on all fours with the majority. The reason he wrote a separate opinion was to make his opinion even WORSE than the rest of the majority. He cited the "necessary and proper" clause. Why use one elastic clause when you can use two? Other than that, he was squarely in agreement, and actually quoted Wickard during oral argument. He had a good laugh about it, actually.

You'll see plenty of conservatives here just like Scalia. It's about pot, so, anything goes! That's conservative "limited" government.

At the macro level, the Constitution is an utter failure at creating a limited scheme. It's a national scheme and always was. This is just a recent example, but our history is littered with them.