How, in your opinion, should the Supreme Court interpret the Commerce Clause?
They can regulate any goods intended to cross state borders for commercial purposes. Less in the areas of production and sale than in the actual shipment. Anything brought across borders by individuals(bought in one state and taken to another) does not count as interstate commerce - otherwise you could regulate me going across the border to buy groceries if I lived near a border, but not the people buying groceries in their own states. Producing goods for oneself is not interstate commerce - ex. growing your own wheat may indirectly affect interstate commerce, but then again almost all actions will, so there wouldn't be a point to the interstate commerce clause specifying one type of commerce if we used the 'it affects it' logic. Hotels, restaraunts, and other established buildings are not interstate commerce unless somehow operated on by a corporation or other type of company that operates such things in multiple states.
Basically, in summary - REAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE and not everything that might affect it.
