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.
“In fact, a lower court doing so is the begining of how a precedent can be over turned.”
No, it is not. A lower court ruling that homosexual marriage is foreign to the US Constitution would be overturned in minutes. You can find a way of saying THIS case differs in some way, and the higher court can overturn an entire previous ruling, but there is a reason why lower courts are called LOWER courts.