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 . . .
I know its not a perfect plan but there needs to be some consequences when judges accept and then rule on cases that clearly have no constitutional foundation.