 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
That's simply not true.
The ideal situation would be that every court in the land would understand correctly what is the law of the land and apply it properly, taking into account the Constitutional limits on the power of Congress.
In reality, the system is imperfect. Since lower courts are subject to appeal, it is fruitless for them to rule in any way other than in accordance with precedent. "Settled law" is simply that law which the appeals courts recognize.
The Supreme Court, however, is not subject to appeals. Short of impeachment, Supreme Court Justices are free to follow precedent or not, as their understanding of the Constitution dictates. This is a practical distinction, not a legal one, since the lower court judges follow the same oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
The lack of a Senate filibuster in the appointment of a lower court appointee may simply reflect political reality and not a confirmation of suitability of a candidate to be a Supreme Court Justice. There is a very different expectation for those who hold office in the highest court of the land. Democrats and Republicans would be mistaken not to recognize this practical distinction.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!