I don’t think they have to go to court to invoke the 10th amendment. In theory the SCOTUS is just there to interpret the law not enforce it. Kinda of like when Jeb Bush threatened but did not deliver on a promise with Terry Schiavo to block any law enforcement from going near her. The courts can blather on all day long but at the end of the day are powerless to enforce any law, they have to have the executive branch do that. I remember the law enforcement guys in Tampa saying they did not answer to the Supreme Court of Florida and would do nothing at their bidding.
"[Obama] will cut off the Fedral Money and [the states] will fall in lockstep. They can not print it. He can."
Methinks you both need a refresher course on American History. The only, and most effective, way to block the law would be through federal courts. All it would take is one Federal District judge, suitably chosen, to suspend the law pending constitutional review. The injunction would prohibit either party from proceeding without additional review.
If Obama attempted something punitive, like punishing the claimant states, the judge could literally fine the Gov't and direct the behavior to stop. THAT is the kind of publicity that even Obama doesn't want. The judge could even hold the Cabinet members, and the President, in contempt of court.
So forgive my bluntness, but you're both wrong. The Terry Schiavo incident is not relevant here, but socialized medicine is.
Just read Wikipedia's entry on Marbury v Madison as a start. Believe it or not, a single judge can stop the entire US Government from proceeding with an unconstitutional act. In theory, that judge can also command US Marshalls to enforce his verdicts in defiance of the US Government. This is all pretty fundamental to our nation and the fact that "We the People" is the ruling principle.