At first I thought that the outrageous thing that Bill Nelson had said in this interview with Rick Klein of ABC News was that the Senator wasn't sure whether or not Obamacare was unconstitutional (good safety tip for legislators: if you don't know whether or not a law violates the Constitution, don't vote for it). But what Nelson was actually saying was that he considers Obamacare Constitutional, but that the courts might disagree. That's fine. He's wrong for thinking that it's Constitutional, but it is consistent with his vote.
But then Senator Nelson said this:
"But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn't strike down the whole law."
How do I put this: NO, THERE IS NO SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AT THE END. There was one in the first draft; it was later removed; the version that you voted for, Senator Nelson, had no severability clause; and the government used as part of its argument for keeping the individual mandate that the mandate could not be separated out from the rest of Obamacare. All of which is immediately obvious to anybody who took the time to read Judge Vinson's decision in the first place... which apparently does not include Senator Bill Nelson.
Although, to be fair: Bill Nelson obviously didn't read the original bill, either. In that, at least, this indicates a certain consistency.