This is, I think, the key paragraph:
The Court has upheld other federal laws that involved equally substantial, if not more substantial, incursions on the general police powers of the States and the autonomy of individuals. If, as Wickard shows, Congress could regulate the most self-sufficient of individuals—the American farmer—when he grew wheat destined for no location other than his family farm, the same is true for those who inevitably will seek health care and who must have a way to pay for it. And if Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption, indeed for selfmedication, Raich, 545 U.S. at 6–7, and if it could do so even when California law prohibited that marijuana from entering any state or national markets, it is difficult to see why Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.
To me, the beginning of wisdom on the Affordable Care Act litigation is just to start with the observation that lots of people think Wickard and Raich were wrongly decided. Which is fine. But “I want the courts to overturn existing precedents and strike down a new law” is different from “Congress has committed an unprecedented infringement of my liberty.”