In neither of them Scalia seems to go against his originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Wrt marijuana - both sides agreed that Congress had authority to regulate use of marijuana, and from this small scale use arguably followed. Wrt free speech - that's one of many defensible interpretations of what the First Amendment was supposed to mean.

The problem is stupid and ambiguous Constitution - you can "solve" it either by trying hard to apply it literally like Scalia until people fix it; or pretend it says something it doesn't like majority in Roe v. Wade.

Bush vs Gore?