p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 9:12 pm
So none of the talking legal heads I've listened to have given a moment to suggest that the lower courts should rebel against a clearly unconstitutional ruling by a clearly corrupt SCOTUS 6.
A few appellate judges have, in the past, occasionally made rulings based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, hinting (or sometimes expressly saying) "SCOTUS got it wrong." And then explaining they took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and to not SCOTUS. And that they're doing their duty with their ruling, and they expect SCOTUS to say it would be doing its duty if it later overruled.
But these were usually in high-volume fields, like immigration or criminal law. Where one wouldn't expect SCOTUS to step in every time to overrule.
OTOH, official-acts immunity is such a narrow (but critical) area that the average judge never will be called on to adjudicate this area of law. If, in one of those comparatively few cases this issue is raised, well, we shall see. (I expect the D.C. Cir. would be the court to watch most closely.)
But, yes, the point is well taken: Lower courts dispense justice retail, one case at a time. Lower courts are called on to interpret the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS' rulings, and may interpret them differently than the Framers or SCOTUS would have wanted.