« on: December 28, 2015, 01:51:34 PM »
Supreme Court? Maybe not. But you know there are a few steps inbetween right?
Of course you're right, and I should have been clearer in my approach.
... [snip] ...
Could a lower court do whatever it wants and ignore the law? Sure, and they'd be quickly smacked down on appeal.
I think you were perfectly clear. Now, I completely agree that lawyers should always couch there answer in terms of probabilities (like the guy who wanted a one-armed attorney, because he was tired of hearing, "But on the other hand..."). But when we're discussing issues here, it's not very helpful to state things, when they are as definitive as this, with the constant caveat, "Well, sure, a trial court could completely ignore Supreme Court precedent that is 100% on point, and that was from a much more liberal time, and just decide to stick it to the Mall, 'cuz."
Not because that's impossible (every good attorney knows a few cases where judged have ignored, forgotten about, or disregarded binding precedent), but because of the extreme unlikelihood. It's hard enough to have a decent legal conversation without trying to account for crazy trial court judges.