There was a very important Supreme Court case that for all the bitter hatred of the Left, Clarence Thomas always points too as where some Court jurisprudence went wrong: the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873).
In that case, the Supreme Court eviscerated an important clause of the fourteenth amendment, the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, and moved on to innaugurate the era of substantive due process.
Now Thomas concern is the implication of the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases for Civil Rights jurisprudence, which he correctly thinks started to go awry then as to rationalizations, lately under the Commerce Clause, if the more important part of the decision was that Courts would for sixty years strike down State and sometimes Federal law on the grounds that it violated the substance of economic liberty.
It got out of that business in 1937 and the Switch in Time that Saved Nine, if some have wanted it to come back in other guises, which the Court threw a bone to in hinting at a Tenth Amendment argument imlicitly in the Medicaid expansion, possibly.
But what Roberts decided not to do was return the Court to a business it got out of a long time ago, which was to pass on the validity of laws that the representatives of the People voted for on the grounds of the limited powers of the government, if he threw a bone to people on the issue of the Commerce Clause that may have significant impact over time.
Madison and most of the Framers of the Constitution, which did not include Jefferson and his Jacobin enthusiasms for a reason, feared majority rule's tendency to deteriorate into a tyranny for this reason in Federalist 10:
"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."
That might well have underestimated something Roberts cited properly, which is the feedback loop of elections, something he is well aware of because it is why he is Chief Justice as to abortion.
Roe v Wade was a classic use of substantive due process reasoning, if it's been elided over because of the taint attached to substantive due process reasoning in matters of economic regulation, and it generated as much as anything the wave of conservative judges that followed, since it motivated a lot of people to vote for conservative candidates that economic interests in the past had made them democrats, like Catholics.
In the end, the People indirectly elect the judges through their choice for President, as to feedback loops in politics and law, if that is a slow one.
Roberts counted on that feedback loop in his decision if Obamacare turns out poorly, and has protected it in his campaign finance decisions as well as to if people really don't like the consequences of law, there is thanks to his jurisprudence no bound on their financial expression of that unhappiness either, if of course that will be the wealthier element in society on average, if hardly exclusively so.
Moreover, the more the Left frames its arguments in that class term, the more they will in fact meet with resistance of people who think the United States can be many things as to policy, if not the Soviet Union. Western Europe also isn't the Soviet Union, although America grew wealthier than Europe in no small measure because it was freer economically, so if those who out of envy and lust for power wish to impoverish us out of a supposed concern for equality, and Pol Pot was nothing if not equal, if we vote for them, we can look in the mirror as to who's to blame.