Right, but it's hard for me to see how that argument proves anything since it ignores the slow and deliberate nature of judicial review and how events can occur

Right, but it's hard for me to see how that argument proves anything since it ignores the slow and deliberate nature of judicial review and how events can occur out-of-order. A policy opportunist would try to simultaneously appeal a law through the appellate court system while also trying to circumvent that process through the legislature. If the appeal were to eventually pass judicial review before Congress were to finally enact the clarification of the law itself, does that render the judicial opinion inaccurate? Put another way: if Congress had tried (and failed) to pass a law that clarifies the interpretation of the First Amendment per Citizens United before the Citizens United decision happened, does that make CU any less "correct"?