I’m not one of those law guys who knows everything and wears a flashy belt, so forgive my stupidity. But I just don’t get it. I mean I understand the idea that something could be a “super precedent” in the sense that it’s particularly powerful and particularly settled. But Arlen Specter’s fancy charts notwithstanding, it just seems hard for me to grasp how Roe could qualify. It’s been immensely controversial. The cases which affirmed it since it first came down, I believe, have been very divided ones. Wouldn’t a real “super precendent” be one that had been unanimously reaffirmed again and again for a very long time which Americans now take for granted and indeed cherish? And that legal scholars respect as soundly decided? Again, I’m not a belt-wearing law guy, so I’m not going to quote a bunch of cases from the 19th century which qualify for what I’m talking about. But Roe seems the opposite of all that. It’s fairly recent, Americans are divided, and scholars — even liberal ones — think it’s pretty shabby.