Sen. Arlen Specter writes, on today's NYT op-ed page:

Some legal scholars attach special significance to what they call superprecedents, which are decisions like Roe v. Wade that have been reaffirmed in later cases.

If this notion of "superprecedents", as well as the word itself, seems entirely novel to you, you're not alone. (Not only novel, but arbitarily invoked: why should Roe be accorded "super" status, but not the free-speech holdings of Buckley v. Valeo, which crumbled when Justice O'Connor decided to change her mind?) Beldar and Althouse (and their respective readers) carve up the poor Pennsylvania Senator, leaving only Specter tartare.