Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Captain Whitebread 2026
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Texas MoMe 2026: 10/16/2026-10/17/2026 Corsicana,TX
Contact Ben Had for info





















« $30+ Million Opening Weekend For... Saw II? | Main | Open Thread for Alito Nomination »
October 30, 2005

It's a Bird, It's a Plane... It's SuperPrecedent!

New York Times article about "super precedents," a new legal concept of sorts. Super precedents are like normal precedents, except they are very important to the "fabric" of our law, and are thus not entitled to mere stare decisis, but super stare decisis.

Liberals used to call these sorts of precedents "liberal precedents." I don't remember them arguing that Bowers v. Hardwick, or the long list of precedents that one could execute a 17 year old cold-blooded killer, were "superprecedents," or really any sort of real precedent at all.

The New York Times, shockingly enough, tries to make trouble for potential Supreme Court nominee Michael Luttig:

An origin of the idea was a 2000 opinion written by J. Michael Luttig, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, who regularly appears on short lists for the Supreme Court.

Striking down a Virginia ban on a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion, Judge Luttig wrote, "I understand the Supreme Court to have intended its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey," the case that reaffirmed Roe in 1992, "to be a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy."

Let's nip this one in the bud: He was saying it was his opinion that, as a judge inferior to the Supreme Court and charged to apply its precedents as they intended, he thought the Court intended itself to esptablish "super-stare-decisis." Not that he believes in such a thing, necessarily. Just that it was his job to do what the Supreme Court, and that the then-current O'Connor-led goofballs on the Court intended to create this new weapon, a +5 Holy Precedent, double-damage vs. rightwing troglodytes.

As a Supreme Court judge, he'll be deciding himself if he believes in "super-precedents."

Prof. Randy Barnett, a member of the Volokh Conspiracy, splashes cold water on this silly spark of imagination:

"The fact that something is a superprecedent doesn't give us a reason to stick to it if it's wrongly decided," said Randy Barnett of Boston University Law School...

Duh.

Seems to me Plessey v. Fergussen's separate-but-equal standard was a superprecedent with a long, multiply-reaffirmed history before, it you know, wasn't.


posted by Ace at 07:49 PM
Comments



Yeah, big deal, superprecedent, yadda yadda yadda.

Who are the winners of the poetry contest?

Posted by: Michael on October 30, 2005 08:14 PM

Althouse has a nice post on this. Sounds to me like Rosen is making up stuff judical conservatives (in this case Luttig) supposedly believe again, ala his "Constitution in Exile" creation.

Posted by: Reo Symes on October 30, 2005 08:27 PM

Striking down a Virginia ban on a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion....

What do people in favor of this "procedure" call it? Enlighten me, oh wise bloggers and lurkers of the blogosphere for am I stupid and drunk a good majority of the time.

Posted by: Feisty on October 30, 2005 08:57 PM

What do people in favor of this "procedure" call it?

"Choice."

Posted by: Sortelli on October 30, 2005 09:00 PM

because "infantcide" just doesn't have the same ring.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on October 30, 2005 09:23 PM

First I heard of this was Specter's mention of "super duper" precedents to John Roberts. Yes, a senior Senator actually said "super duper" to a SCOTUS nominee.

Posted by: The Unabrewer on October 30, 2005 10:19 PM

A superprecedent... kinda reminds me of that line in A Few Good Men when Demi Moore STRENUOUSLY objected.

Were these people absent from law school on the day they taught law or something?

Posted by: Laura C on October 30, 2005 10:23 PM

Feisty, the medical name for the procedure is "Dilation and extraction"( the cervix is what is dilated) or "D&X". It's sometimes confused with the most common procedure used in the early second trimester, the dilation and evacuation, or "D&E". Both procedures have lower morbidity and mortality for women than other procedures available to end pregnancy. Some "partial birth bans" are broad enough to prohibit both.

If abortion in the second trimester is to remain legal, you can see the obvious objections to making women resort to procedures that put them in greater danger than D&E or D&X.


It is undeniable that pregnancy has serious risks to a woman's health, and ending a pregnancy can mitigate those risks. Women who undergo induced abortions in the second trimester usually do so because they either face a more difficult course than average, are at greater risk than average, or some defect of abnormality did not become manifest until the second trimester...

A women who find out that she will not deliver a healthy child will have to weigh the risk of continuing a pregnancy to term, including all the bad things that can happen to her (ranging from temprorary disability from the pregnancy, loss of ability to work, to blood disorders, exacerbation of immune disorders or underlying illness, bleeding complications , loss of fertility from obstetric injury or treatment necessary as a result of a pregnancy complication, malfunction or damage of major organs, risk of mental disorders, and so on, and so on, that can result from any pregnancy and to which she may or may not be at greater risk, depending on the particular abnormality of the pregnancy) against the ultimate outcome.

There are many serious genetic and/or congenital abnormalities of a fetus that may not be discovered until the second trimester. Some are too horrible to describe, others you might be familiar with (trisomy 21, siamese twins, etc)I don't intend to argue that women "should" end a pregnancy because of this, but they should have a right to individually assess and mitigate the risks of pregnancy based on their own assessment of the benefit of continuing with a pregnancy and desire or ability to deal with a bad outcome, inconsultation with their physician.

It is sane and rational to oppose risk increasing- beaurocratic delatys delays or insistence that only more dangerous means to end a pregnancy in the second trimester can be used, while ending a pregnancy in the second trimester remains legal.

Posted by: Anonymous PB supporter on October 30, 2005 10:41 PM

Yeah, guys, it's okay. Every child who gets aborted this way would have been some ugly mutant, or so poor and so black or something.

Posted by: Sortelli on October 30, 2005 10:56 PM

Seriously, though, it is interesting that the anonymous shaky-fingered PB supporter based the entire argument over the mother's health "as long as abortion in the second trimester remains legal". That's an area I'm sure there could be compromise on, in the case of tragic and life-threatening complications.

But trying to come up with reasonable explanations for why it's okay, or at least the less tragic option in isolated cases, to kill a fetus isn't all that compelling as a broad defense of "what oponents call partial-birth abortion". Because right now it isn't always about the mother's health.

Sometimes it's about whether or not she wants to buy mayonaise at Price Club. HORRORS.

Posted by: Sortelli on October 30, 2005 11:12 PM

I believe it was Costco, not Price Club.

Anyway, I question the timing.

Posted by: holdfast on October 31, 2005 12:05 AM

Looks like we'll know tomorrow morning.

Will Santa bring a sweater (Alito, Luttig), a new bike (Jones, JRB), or a lump of coal (Mahoney, Owen)? Stay tuned.

Posted by: someone on October 31, 2005 12:07 AM

Sorry about the crap spelling, folks. In my defense I haven't slept for about 24 hours, but it's embarrassing to undermine one's own remarks by typing like a monkey on meth.

If I recall that costco case, the fear of large containers of mayionaise was her best case scenario - the least of that woman was facing,whether she realized it or not. A triplet pregnancy is high risk and if she didn't consider the possible health consequences to herself, she should have.

However, in my view she waited too fucking long.
There is no excuse today for any woman failing to obtain an early abortion if "convenience" is her reason ( that's a pretty broad term encompassing a lot a situations, but I'll use it to describe any woman who is really wanting to avoid even an ordinary pregnancy and the best possible outcome of a healthy infant.)

I personally think no induced abortions for convenience should take place after eight weeks at the most. However, I am not certain what reasonable restrictions could be made that would not also be either so overbroad as to be meaningless in effect, or a burdensome intrusion by the government into private concerns .

Posted by: Shaky fingers on October 31, 2005 12:48 AM

but it's embarrassing to undermine one's own remarks by typing like a monkey on meth.

I often find myself wailing away like a coked up chimpanze, myself. If not a hirsuite heroin hammered orangutang.

Posted by: Sortelli on October 31, 2005 01:42 AM

Hmmm, well, actually, I rather think giving birth early might be safer for the mother than dismembering a fetus inside her uterus, but what do I know? I'd rather not have sharp instruments inside my uterus, that's for sure. I can't see that medical abortions really improve the health of the mother. The female body was made to handle pregnancy -- for the vast majority of women, it's safer to go through the whole schmeer than have your uterus and its "contents" pickled and scraped.

I'm willing to bet most late-term abortions aren't because the mother is going to die or be crippled by normal birth (in which case, they'd only need to induce labor early or do a C-section. I don't see why the baby has to =die=... if the baby is removed alive, I would think the outcome would be the same with regards to the health of the mother.) I would be willing to bet that a lot of these late-term abortions are because the baby is "defective". My grandma taught special education, so I've gotten to meet lots of people with Downs Syndrome. But now people can tell if the baby has genetic problems before it's born (and sometimes the tests come out wrong... oops, you aborted your healthy baby because you thought it was retarded? Well, no medical test is perfect.) -- I'm just hoping wrongful birth suits never win in this country, as they have in Europe.

If the baby is going to die soon after it's born, then why not just let it die a natural death, as opposed to sticking scissors into its skull? I don't see why everybody is in such a hurry for people to die. We're all going to die eventually. Just be patient.

Posted by: meep bobeep on October 31, 2005 05:20 AM

Hey Shaky...since when do they do abortions at 8 weeks? That would be, like, the day after you miss your first period, right?

I don't even think partial birth abortions are that common or that most physicians would perform one for the sake of mere convenience? I had a friend who was seeking a 5th (or 6th?)-month abortion out of desperation and fear, and she could not find a single person to perform it in the entrire states of MN, WI, or IA.

Posted by: Feisty on October 31, 2005 05:33 AM

Feisty,

...since when do they do abortions at 8 weeks? That would be, like, the day after you miss your first period, right?

Uh, wrong. 8 weeks is two months, i.e. two menses, as in menstruate. Two periods, not one.

I don't even think partial birth abortions are that common....

There are about 7000 performed each year, so they are a small percentage of abortions, but it is say 9 times the rate of soldiers dying in Iraq. You personally know someone who wanted it done, which means it can't be that uncommon.

Posted by: caspera on October 31, 2005 07:33 AM

How about this? why don't we work on some common sense measures.

Like a parent being informed before a MINOR (like a 13 or 16 yr old) has A SURGICAL PROCEDURE!!!

How about a requirement that the girl or woman be given ALL available options and NOT JUST FROM THE CLINIC THAT IS ABOUT TO PROFIT OFF HER AGONY.

How about "informed consent?" Abortion is the only surgical procedure in the country where a doctor is not required to discuss EXACTLY what the procedure is.

And how about a 24 hr waiting period? I mean do you have any other surgery without thinking about it?

What? You thought these things were in place? You would be wrong. Legislative bodies keep passing these laws and courts keep striking them down. Welcome to the insane world of liberalism.

And is is so unreasonable for the father to at least be informed??? I mean it IS his child too. And by the time anu abortion is performed (after 6 weeks) the heart is beating and brain waves are detected. So MAYBE the father has a right? And maybe, just maybe, the baby has some rights too?

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on October 31, 2005 08:53 AM

alito is the nominee

Posted by: Veritas on October 31, 2005 10:43 AM
Posted by: veritas on October 31, 2005 10:45 AM

Ohhh, the pain. I was just over at DU reading the comments on Alito, and my sides are sore from laughing.
The sudden Dem fondness for Miers is downright heartwarming.

Posted by: lauraw on October 31, 2005 11:41 AM

I'd like to know more about this magical sword of which you speak.

Posted by: Lord Grimshackle 15th level Fighter/Magic User/Thief on October 31, 2005 12:10 PM

Yeah, but what about the double-secret precedents?

Posted by: OregonMuse on October 31, 2005 12:33 PM

I have the Hand and Eye of Vecna. They are worthless to me.

Posted by: Lord Grimshackle 15th level Fighter/Magic User/Thief on October 31, 2005 12:43 PM

wow! glad to see we haven't dumbed down the Constitution or anything

is it time, Ace, to re-run those super-duper-sized Halloween super hero costumes? just for old time's sake.
show the people how spiderman's privates and wonder woman's bouffant fight for super dupe dupe duper truth justice and the american way?

Posted by: on November 1, 2005 02:47 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Mayor Karen is so stung by fan-made AI ads that she's resorting to the shitlibs' go-to demand for an end to criticism -- these ads are "violent" and "hateful" and making me feel unsafe because one video showed AI cartoons throwing tomatoes at me and the tomatoes looked like blood when they squished
This was her actual complaint. The mushed-up tomato looked like blood so it's a death threat and these violent attacks on me must stop. What is dis bitch, CNN?
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD are joined by Jeff Carter, candidate for NV treasurer, and seasoned finance professional, for a discussion of the issues facing Nevadans, and the larger financial challenges in America.
Few people remember that Norm MacDonald began his career as a ventriloquist
MacDonald's old partner Adam Egot revealed that MacDonald repurposed a bit with one of his ventriloquist dolls -- that he was a "bad guy" who "didn't believe the Holocaust happened" -- for the Norm MacDonald show, in which he claimed Egot didn't believe in the Holocaust.
Funniest thing I've read about the Virginia mess. Back when they were hustling the referendum through the assembly both Senators, Warner and Kaine, advised them to go slow and play by the rules. Louise Lucas said she respected them but didn't need advice from the "cuck chair" in the corner. The gerrymandering was overturned and Louise is heading for the big house. Edward G. Robinson voice "where's your cuck now?"
Posted by: Smell the Glove

I posted his post on twitter and it's gotten 25K views so far. Thanks, Smell the Glove
Chris
@chriswithans

aaahahaa.jpg


"Ahhhhh ahh I put my career on the line for Louise Lucas and Jay Jones thinking they'd vault me into presidential contention and we ended up costing Democrats 20 House seats and unleashing a Reverse Dobbs ahhhhh ahhh"
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click That Sums Up the Democrat Communist Party Today
Something is wrong as I hold you near
Somebody else holds your heart, yeah
You turn to me with your icy tears
And then it's raining, feels like it's raining
"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.
Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over
"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)
No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.
Now they've lost 84%.
Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.
Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...
The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.


Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.


Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party
STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.
Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.
Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:
spidermanthreatormenace.jpg

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"
Recent Comments
Snooty Theatre Critic : "The Opening Silo was a quirky Off-Broadway musical ..."

SciVo[/i][/b][/u][/s]: "[i]>> 121 Would DeSantis be able to serve on SCOTU ..."

San Franpsycho: "Thanks CBD. I just got here, has any morons sug ..."

Rev. Wishbone: "I love AOC. She's like an after dinner sitcom bim ..."

no one of any consequense: ""My failure was that I didn't build a distillery t ..."

davidt: "Follow the money, someone said. ..."

whig: "167 Meat prices have gone up largely because of an ..."

Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) Imprison! Imprison! Imprison!: " Sepsisia ..."

Martini Farmer: "> The advances in drone tech have made the war unw ..."

CharlieBrown'sDildo: " He's soporific when publicly speaking, and I'm a ..."

Eromero: "178 176 You forgot Freedonia. Klopstockia Po ..."

whig: "161 I suspect that Putin's biggest worry is that i ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives