Ugh

Like most people (well, most people who don't have their heads up their asses and have lost any credibility when they make a procedural-type of argument), I'm dismayed at the Supreme Court's ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft. I wish I could say I'm shocked, but sadly this was all too typical. How is an act that isn't interstate and doesn't involve commerce called interstate commerce? I mean, I don't have a law degree or anything like that, but it seems to me that Justice Thomas is exactly right, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." Not that this is something new.
Off topic a little, please don't call Thomas Scalia's puppet anymore. He is clearly his own man, with strong convictions and well-thought out positions. You don't have to agree with him to recognize that he's just as legit a Justice as any of the other eight.
And off topic a little more, can someone explain to me why Thomas was wrong in Lawrence v. Texas? Clearly the federal government can't make sodomy illegal, but it's not so clear to me that this is true for the states. Don't point out why sodomy should be a right, show me why the Constitution prohibits states from having this type of law.