Never mind about that decision last week in Michigan that bought the administration argument that the individual mandate was legal. Analysis I've read from some good sites finds the reasoning used by the judge shocking and don't expect any but the most liberal judges to buy it.

That said, this news today about a Florida judge finding that the states can go forward with their suits is a blow to administration hopes:

"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.

"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.

Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing what they consider unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain healthcare coverage, among other issues.

Vinson dismissed four of six claims the states brought against the healthcare law but said he saw grounds to proceed on two counts, including one relating to the way critics say it would force huge new spending by state governments.

It was always believed that most of the claims would be dismissed, the strategy being to load up as many complaints as possible thus giving the judge a reason to allow the suit to go forward under a much more limited scope.

Since repealing Obamacare would be symbolic at best (unless the GOP can convince dozens of Democrats to uphold Obama's expected veto), it appears that the courts will be the frontline of the battle to get rid of this turkey.