Farber's alleged refutation is as circular as your own. You cannot prove a point by affirming it as a consequent, capitan.
"But there is an important exception. A court that lacks the power to hear a case - lacks jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject matter of the case - cannot give itself jurisdiction by fiat.
The court did not need to give itself jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters - it already had it from the Judicial Act of 1789 and that same jurisdiction had been upheld in Bollman. Lincoln, on the other hand, had the burden of proving that he could magically take the jurisdiction of the court away despite no evident constitutional mechanism for him to do so, seeing as the constitution gives jurisdictional control exclusively to congress.
"It probably goes too far to say that the president can always make his own independent determination of whether a court had jurisdiction.... But if the court's exercise of judicial power is a clear usurpation of authority over a case that it has no colorable claim to be hearing, or if the court's claim of jurisdiction invades some critical constitutional policy, then the president may not be obligated to obey. Regard for checks and balances should make us reluctant to go much beyond such extraordinary cases. But when a court acts without jurisdiction at the expense of critical constitutional values, presidential noncompliance coheres with our normal understanding of the biding effect of judicial decrees.
More affirmation of the consequent. Farber has not demonstrated that the courts lost their jurisdiction on habeas corpus at any point and neither have you. Taney, in fact, specifically addresses the issue of jurisdiction from the outset of his case and finds it to exist in the Judicial Act of 1789. Barring your discovery of a heretofore unknown repeal, alteration, or suspension of that act by Congress in 1861, it is physically impossible that the court could have lost its jurisdiction.
"The courts could not rule on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus because they lacked jurisdiction to rule. The courts lacked jurisdiction to rule because Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus."
He's even cooked up a multi-paragraph excerpt from Berkeleyite law prof Daniel Farber saying little more than the same in about 10 times as many words.
Except in cases where the writ has been suspended. Farber, a fully credentialled legal scholar provides the rationale. You, who have no similar credentials, are in no position to authoritatively reject the argument.
You set the bar.