There difference, I think, is that the VA judge ruled only the individual mandate unconstitutional, so the states were still under obligation to comply with all the other elements of the law (setting up the so-called “exchanges” for example).
However, with the FL ruling that the entire law is unconstitutional, the states are no longer under any obligation to comply with any part of the law, so they shouldn’t have to waste all the money and manpower building a system that, at least for now, has been voided.
It seems some states want to play it safe and execute the law anyway, just in case it is ultimately found constitutional. Other states (the blue ones) simply want Obamacare, so are already proceeding to implement it, pissing away scarce taxpayer dollars building a system that most likely will be struck down by the Supremes.
The Supreme Court owes it the the American taxpayer to expedite a ruling on this monstrosity, once and for all.
Thanks for the explanation. If I understand properly, the VA judge Hudson declared the individual mandate unconstitutional; the FL judge Vinson did the same, but went further, and said that the individual mandate is not separable from the rest of the law, and that makes the whole law unconstitutional?
If the blue states like the federal law, why cant they just adapt it and adopt it as a state law? That would be legitimate, at least within my understanding, since the states CAN mandate constitutionally that which the feds cannot.