I think the biggest change happened when they decided to use their ability to regulate commerce between the States to stomp on a farmer and SCOTUS decided to uphold it
There was a progression -- from Marshal, to the meatpackers, to the New Deal
Gibbons v. Ogden -- 1824, 22US
The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments....
; But the end affect is the commerce clause barely exists, most certainly not implemented as it was intended. The commerce clause evolved from allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce to allowing Congress to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, thanks to the "Necessary and Proper clause"; for example, congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, congress may regulate anything that threatens interstate commerce, even if it's only intrastate activities, and congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.
Then we got this whacky idea called rational basis review, where the judiciary must show deference to current elected representatives, if there are reasons that support congressional judgement, the justices are supposed to support the current elected, even if the judges would come to different conclusions.
Increasing deference towards current politicians is also deference away from slamming their laws by declaring things "unconstitutional" when they are unconstitutional. US vs Lopez.