>>512581831
I mean, I amend my previous statement to the following: it presumes a basic value consensus on how the law should be applied. You would grant this power to lower court judges on the assumption that they would only use it (sparingly) if they genuinely thought
>hang on, I see an objective flaw in reasoning or interpretation here that SCOTUS, as an impartial arbitrator, would agree with if made aware of
But it breaks down in the current context where there are two factions with diametrically opposed views of how the law should be interpreted or enforced