In my opinion, nothing at all. I think the whole doctrine is nonsense. Uprooting it will be an important step back toward limited, constitutional government. My point is just that Gonzales v Raich didn't add to that doctrine in any significant way. The courts and the DOJ could cite Wickard and get the same mileage they get from Raich.
Of course Congress doesn't have to use all the power the Court says it has. But using that power doesn't help justify different and greater usurpations. I'd like to see a Republican Congress say that Wickard was wrong and it would interpret its power more narrowly than the Court has, but that's a fantasy. Back in the real world, Congress doesn't hurt the argument that the individuals mandate is unconstitutional by accepting Wickard and acting accordingly.
The argument that it does is a manifestation of the civil war some foolish libertarians want to start within the broader conservative movement. The author is taking up any stick he can find to beat “social conservatives” with and he doesn't seem to care whether he's making any sense. Now of all times, this isn't constructive.
There has always been suspicion that the “social conservative” wing of the GOP came into being with the religious right’s disillusionment with Jimmy Carter and his administration. They flocked to the GOP to help elect Reagan and have been in the Republican party since. Many movement conservatives who pre-dated Reagan worried that this class of voters believed, like the liberals, that government would be a fine place to address the various perceived moral failings of the American citizen. The founders of the conservative movement in this country had no truck with authoritarian moralists who allied with government to impose additional controls over our lives, and still don't.(Read Kirk, Buckley and Goldwater) I think a Church that can not move people to right through moral persuasion has no business trying to do so through force using the police powers of the State. A large chunk of the conservative base will reject that attempt. Myself included.
Blue laws are an insult to a free man...whether he be a preacher or a hooker. A nanny State is a Nanny State...something that both liberals and social conservatives seem to desire.