Justice for All, Except When it Might Be Confusing

Could someone who understands campaign finance reform, or more to the point, the judicial process, explain to me the hell is going on with McCain – Feingold?
If I understand this correctly, a federal court issued a 1,600+ page ruling a little ways back basically declaring many provisions of the bill to be unconstitutional. But Monday, that very same court decided to set aside its own ruling.
Money paragraph from the LA Times:
In Monday’s ruling, two of the three judges on a special U.S. district court panel said they wanted to avoid adding further confusion to the already- complex world of political fund-raising.
Er, news flash to the court: a bit late for that.
What is the legal basis for doing such a thing? How can a court declare its findings, and then decide not to actually abide by them due to such a squishy concept as “avoiding further confusion”?
I was really hoping for some Volokh action on this one, but the boys don’t seem to have turned their attention to the issue lately. Any volunteers?
Update: The Volokh’s now have some coverage, and point to Rick Hasen’s Election Law blog for more.