A lower court judge asserting consistency of a binding precedent by a higher court is not news. The question is, what does this judge think, professionally, leg

A lower court judge asserting consistency of a binding precedent by a higher court is not news. The question is, what does this judge think, professionally, legally, without respect to precedent, which as a SCOTUS justice he's able to reconsider, are limits to state surveillance if any at all? For at least 2-3 decades now, there's substantial evaluation and grooming of judges for SCOTUS that does not begin with their nomination by a long shot. The big problem I see is the process depends on trust, and there is a distinct lack of it. If public trust can be correlated to some reasonable degree to public approval, the person doing the nominating is below the water mark on approval, and the body doing the advise and consent is even farther below his. And that explains nominee's low approval. The low public trust in two branches is now extending into the third, and regardless of the specific issues at stake no one should be pleased at further erosion of trust. The Senate would be well advised to new rules agreeing to a 3/5ths majority confirmation for all federal judges, while also limiting the filibuster and individual senator indefinite hold on appointees. These things would improve trust in the process.