Incorrect. A lower court judge must comply - or at least pretend to comply - with higher court rulings. A lower court judge, for example, cannot currently rule that homosexual marriage is a travesty and has no constitutional protection. It just doesn’t work that way.
Wrong. I lower court judge CAN disagree with a precedent. There is no supreme court lock on a lower court judge’s mind, legal thinking or decisions. A lower court judge CAN make a legal argument contrary to a precedent. In fact, a lower court doing so is the begining of how a precedent can be over turned. Now then, the supremes may reject that lower court’s argument and stick with a previous precedent, sending the case back to the lower court with a ruling against them. BUT THEY ALSO, the supremes, ARE NOT BOUND BT THAT PRECEDENT EITHER. Why? A precdent is not the Constitution of the United States and it and only it, not any “precedent” is the supreme law of the land. No court ruling or precedent is above a legal argument that it is wrong, none.