The linked article is about errors in facts that were part of the Court's decision making process. The criticism you are making is about how the Court interpre

The linked article is about errors in facts that were part of the Court's decision making process. The criticism you are making is about how the Court interpreted the law, which is a fundamentally different sort of error. There are multiple theories of constitutional interpretation, and there is no broad consensus among Supreme Court Justices for which to use . Only some of them involve trying to discern the authors' intent. In Wickard, I can't find any reference to the intent of the authors of the Constitution, so I don't believe this is a case of a factual error. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion.