In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent," in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations.  Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent" later became associated with different issue: the difficulty of overturning a decision.  In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in Roe v. Wade ), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by a kind of super-stare decisis."  The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually immune from being overturned, regardless of whether they were decided correctly in the first place, is the idea to which the term "super stare decisis " now usually refers.
Not for headlines, but within copy, it is important for me to use the word LIKE somewhere in there for two reasons. The first is such usage almost always is in an analogy, and anologies work well in persuasive writing. Analogies are like pictures, they convey more than the words they are comprised of. The second is that within the analogy, I always try and put the word like in front of what I am persuading about. For example, if the new “what-a-car-mobile” is something I am trying to pursuade some to take interest in, I could say “Seeing a double rainbow is for visual pleasure much like the what-a-car-mobile is for driving pleasure. The embedded secondary statement that speaks to the subconscious is ‘like the what-a-car-mobile”.