The false claims about Scalia's inconsistencies

TPM and other Democrat liberal organizations are launching last ditch efforts to save Obamacare.  Among their targets is: Supreme Court Justice Scalia.  In his new book, Scalia questions whether the infamous 1942 Wickard v. Filburn decision was correctly decided.  They have argued that Scalia is a political opportunist.  

“This is typical Scalia,” added Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA School of Law. “He respects precedents when they fit his conservative ideology and disregards them when they don’t. … “Once again, we see that Scalia’s originalism is a charade.” . . .

I have my own issues with Mr. Winkler, but I don't see any back and forth on this issue.  People normally go from Lopez to Gonzales v. Raich, but those two cases aren't inconsistent.  Lopez was much less novel that people claim since all the congress had to do was repass the same law with a very minor change that just required that prosecutors had to make a finding that interstate trade was impacted.  That had long been the standard, but Schumer had forgotten to put the language in the safe school zone bill.  So based on his book there is one change, and there are logical reasons for why he would make that change now.  Wickard had been difficult to maintain because overturning it would eliminate huge sections of the Federal government.  But now, with Obamacare, those costs to the court of overturning so much precedent is balanced against new pushes for whole new areas of regulation.