The "not really" was to I didn't forget that ruling....
But then again I would still disagree that it's "the law" it's the more the courts ruling that is use (or misused) under "the law"
To say the all courts ruling are "the law" assumes that all courts perfectly apply "The Law" in every case
But that can't be in that higher courts over turn lower courts ruling ever day...the higher courts correct and or perfecting the "ruling" to "The law" but do the alway get it to "perfect" ...
I personnel think of the law as a fixed tool and courts use and missuse that tool to create ruling and that laws can be worn out and a broken down as the courts use them as the sum of ever so imperfect precedent accumulates the logic becomes circular
(Yes I know, I know, almost no trained lawyer or judge would agree the are trained to think what ever they rule is "law"...I work as an network engineer and real law and logic are hard fixed things you either get it right or crash and burn you can't bullshit a fix ... lawyer or judge wouldn't know a real law if it bit them in the ass)
Simple test let write a new amendment to prevent congress and the courts from passing law that prevent the exercise of free political speech as the did in the so called campaign finance reform...how much different would the wording of the new amendment need to be from the old 1st amendment...
If your intellectually honest and look an the original amendment and not the accumulated wear and tear of imperfect precedent that accumulates... the 1st amendment is a complete able to block "so called campaign finance reform"... nothing wrong with the part it was broke by the user missuse