How about we get some Federal judges together?

Check this out. And this.

So, even if one agrees with originalism as a jurisprudential philosophy, which I do, the notion that district court judges should apply it to federal legislation seems problematic. Eugene Volokh puts it succinctly: "Judge Vinson is only a District Court judge. Under the principle of vertical stare decisis, he is bound by Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g, Winslow v. F.E.R.C., 587 F.3d 1133. 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kavanaugh, J.) (“Vertical stare decisis — both in letter and in spirit — is a critical aspect of our hierarchical Judiciary headed by ‘one supreme Court.’”) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 1). And when Supreme Court precedent conflicts with original meaning, Judge Vinson is bound to follow the former."

We should get some district court judges, maybe even a circuit court judge if we can swing it, to have a conversation, before an audience, about the propriety of applying one's judicial philosophy at the trial or appellate court level, as opposed to the Supreme Court.

Any thoughts?