Not like Taney. He was legitimately acting under authority of the 1789 Judiciary Act where a Supreme Court Justice is authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus. He states that in Ex Parte Merryman, and I've quoted the section of the Judiciary Act for you above. Here is what Taney said in Ex Parte Merryman:
The application in this case for a writ of habeas corpus is made to me under the 14th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 81], which renders effectual for the citizen the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That act gives to the courts of the United States, as well as to each justice of the supreme court, and to every district judge, power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.
Maybe if I keep repeating the law to you enough times it will sink in. One can only hope.
I did read O'Connor's stay and quoted from it. I stated that she had done her action as a circuit justice. My point was that in an emergency, she took action without a call from the lower court. So did Taney, and he could act under the 1789 law, emergency or no emergency.
Again, Justice Douglas issues a stay. A temporary postponement. He did not issue a decision in the name of the entire court but halted a proceeding to allow the entire court to consider it.
I have no sympathy for the Rosenbergs. but Justice Douglas made a valid Supreme Court ruling though I disagree with his argument. If the Court had decided not to reconvene and address the issue Douglas raised, the issue could have stopped there.
Does this imply a change in your position? Earlier you were describing Taney's actions as a Supreme Court decision, and as such who was Lincoln supposed to appeal it to? But if it was, in fact, a Discrict Court decision then sure, it could have been appealed. So which is it now?
As I read the law in force back then this morning, I'm not sure Lincoln could have appealed Taney's Ex Parte Merryman ruling. If the whole Supreme Court could only hear appellate cases as you and the Constitution says, then the whole Supreme Court could not hear an appeal to Taney's perfectly legal action as a Supreme Court Justice ruling on habeas Corpus per the 1789 law. Taney's ruling stands, fully legal, unappealable.
Ex Parte Merryman was a district court decision.
No, it wasn't. If the 1789 law is in error, it might be, but it was not.
And nobody, least of all me, is disputing he had that power. Not only did the Judiciary Act say so but the 1807 Bollman decision (made by the entire court and not just one justice) ruled that the a Supreme Court justice could issue a writ.
Maybe if I keep repeating the law to you enough times it will sink in. One can only hope.
Maybe is you stuck to the issue, whether Merryman was a Supreme Court case or a District Court case, you wouldn't have to.
did read O'Connor's stay and quoted from it. I stated that she had done her action as a circuit justice. My point was that in an emergency, she took action without a call from the lower court. So did Taney, and he could act under the 1789 law, emergency or no emergency.
No, you went further than that. When asked for examples of a single Justice issuing a decision on behalf of the entire Supreme Court you offer two examples where justices issued stays. In neither case could their actions be classified as court decisions. In both instances the stays were temporary and ordered only so another court, either a District Court or the Supreme Court, could consider the case. That is a far cry from a judicial decision, and perhaps you're unclear as to the difference?
I have no sympathy for the Rosenbergs. but Justice Douglas made a valid Supreme Court ruling though I disagree with his argument.
He did not make a Supreme Court ruling. He issued a stay so that the entire court could consider the matter. The court issued the ruling, not Justice Douglas. He just delayed matters until the entire court could rule on it. If Justice Douglas had the authority to issue a ruling in the name of the entire court, why did the entire court have to rule on it?
As I read the law in force back then this morning, I'm not sure Lincoln could have appealed Taney's Ex Parte Merryman ruling. If the whole Supreme Court could only hear appellate cases as you and the Constitution says, then the whole Supreme Court could not hear an appeal to Taney's perfectly legal action as a Supreme Court Justice ruling on habeas Corpus per the 1789 law. Taney's ruling stands, fully legal, unappealable.
Perhaps because you're reading the law, and the Constitution wrong? The Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over matters involving foreign representatives or where states are involved. The Merryman matter involved neither of those, it was an entirely federal matter - U.S. Army, the President, and an individual. Maryland wasn't involved. So the Supreme Court only had appellate jurisdiction. So Taney could not issue a decision for the court, the matter had no business being before the court to begin with. The matter belonged in district court, and that decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. So you were right by accident. Lincoln could have appealed the Taney decision from the district court. He did not. We can argue the whys of that at some other time.
No, it wasn't. If the 1789 law is in error, it might be, but it was not.
It is not the Judiciary act or the Constitution that is in error. It's you.