I don't mean to nitpick, Tom, but is this really your plan?

I believe he's talking about the fact that Congress passed a law that prohibits fictional depictions of underage sex if it's obscene. That's redundant as to illegality -- it is already illegal to distribute obscenity -- but has the effect of applying the harsh penalties for child porn (featuring actual children) to obscene fictional depictions of underage sex. Congress couldn't "put back" everything the Supreme Court struck down, because the Court said that some of the law was unconstitutional -- the part that prohibited fictional depictions without any consideration of whether they met the requirements for obscenity.