That’s not true. I think that commentators were stressing that this ruling only applies to the case brought by VA and that the other cases were still pending. If Obamacare is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional, period.
I’m sorry, but my explanation is absolutely true.
The judge is only allowed to answer the question that was asked. If he extends his ruling beyond that, it is grounds for the ruling to be struck down based on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. To stay within the confines of the law, the judge has to rule within the limited scope of the case before him.
The principle, though, applies throughout the land. On that we absolutely agree. But, the ruling in this specific case is rightfully limited to the confines of this specific case - until it is expanded by other rulings, or until it is contradicted by other (unconnected) rulings.
Once again: I agree that the principle of the ruling should be applied throughout the land. BUT, the scope of the ruling necessarily limits its direct application to only the specific jurisdiction involved. In this case, the state of Virginia.