If a federal judge is over ruled at the appellate or Supreme Court level 3 times they should be removed from office.
The have demonstrated a complete failure to understand and apply the US constitution.
This would quickly put an end to this judicial nonsense.
It all comes down to accountability and right now these is none.
So if Obama-appointed appellate judges overrule a Trump-appointed district court judge three times he Trump judge should be removed? That creates some perverse incentives for appellate judges.
The only quibble I would have is that SCOTUS sometimes reverses its own prior rulings - so a lower court judge might in all good faith think that (in the classic example) Plessy v. Ferguson should and might be overruled. The lower court judge is thus in a bind, knowing he might be vindicated by SCOTUS - or not - whether he rules with or against the Plessy precedent.. . . and, knowing that, justices of SCOTUS might thereby be biased to stick with a bad precedent which otherwise they might overturn. Could that be finessed somehow, by having the justices of SCOTUS critique the lower judge’s objectivity? I kinda doubt it. Maybe you could modify your rule - and get support from SCOTUS for the idea - if you said that the lower judge is protected if the SCOTUS verdict is not unanimous .
Morrison v. Olson is a terrible example of what you would hate to see happen - SCOTUS ruled 8-1, and Scalia famously dissented (and early in his SCOTUS career, at that). Scalia didn’t think it was even a close call - “this wolf comes as a wolf” - and it is generally accepted now that Scalia alone was correct. How would you like to have been a lower court judge, subject to your rule, and to have had to decide that case! Worse, Scalia himself could have been that lower court judge, a couple of years earlier - and have been overruled by SCOTUS 9-0!
I seem to be losing my enthusiasm for your idea . . .