In this Article, I propose that in this post-Dobbs America, if Americans are ever able to believe in, or even understand the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s power, practitioners, scholars, and educators should rely on the power of analogical reasoning, something attorneys are taught beginning their first weeks of law school. Using the power of analogy, we should take the simple story of Superman to explain the magnitude of the power held by the Supreme Court and the critical role that stare decisis must play in the Court’s decision-making. Perhaps if we explain legal principles and the judiciary by comparing them to one of the most recognizable pop cultural symbols in American history, we might be able to better understand how the Supreme Court’s power works—and how vital it is that it be bound by stare decisis.

Part II of this Article examines the way analogies and analogical reasoning neurologically work—how our brains process and understand information when we have a source analog to compare to a target. Given the effectiveness of analogical reasoning, neurologically and in law school, Part II suggests that lawyers and legal scholars use the power of analogy to compare the awesome power of Superman to the awesome power of the United States Supreme Court to help citizens and students better understand and process the magnitude of the Court’s power. Furthermore, comics present simplified stories of power, which render the analogy of Superman to the Supreme Court graspable by the public at large—a fundamental goal if America is ever to stop future Dobbs-like decisions.

Part III introduces the story of Superman and the way he tempers his superpowers through self-imposed restraint, a direct analog for the Supreme Court’s power and the role of stare decisis. Part IV examines the Supreme Court’s powers and the evolution of stare decisis—the Court’s version of Clark Kent’s self-imposed restraint. Part V brings the analogy together, directly comparing the source—Superman and his restraint—to the target—the Supreme Court and the necessity of stare decisis. Ultimately, I hope that readers will consider this analogy and use it in simple conversations regarding the Court, a tiny idea explaining a large concept, during our most crucial hours as a country.