No, Dave, I got it right... Roberts and Co will strike down over a hundred years of precedence...

Congresss enacted a law (name escapes me) in 1906 that limited corporations for buying power in the government... Courts have upheld that law ever since... (The cat will come to me... Brain fade)...

So everytime the act has been reviewed the courts have upheld it... I reckon that those decsions are what would be thought of as precedents...

Roberts and gang are about to interpret this 103 year old act, whioch has been uphelp for over a century and they are going to, in essence, say that every time the courts have upheld that those courts were wrong...

Seems to me that that amounts to striking down those decisions...

What am I missing here???

B~