"Bollman was not about habeas corpus, it was about conspiracy to commit treason" - capitan_refugio, post 237
Of course, there is no doubt as to what Marshall actually said the case was about:
The inquiry therefore on this motion will be, whether by any statute, compatible with the constitution of the United States, the power to award a writ of habeas corpus, in such a case as that of Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout, has been given to this court.
And there's similarly no doubt as to what Marshall actually ruled in the case:
The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws. The motion [for a writ of habeas corpus], therefore, must be granted.
Yet capitan has seen it fit to brazenly declare that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus." With outright delusions such as these in the face of incontrovertible evidence one seriously has to wonder about his sanity.
Of course there is one other explanation aside from a degraded mental state, that being honesty. Of late capitan has suffered severely in this area. When faced with an incontrovertable fact his favored tactic nowadays seems to be flinging whatever unsubstantiated and contrived piece of refuse he can in the direction of that fact. Prove to him that Lincoln illegally obstructed Judge Merrick and he pulls a chunk of crap out of his @ss claiming that Merrick was a "confederate sympathizer" even though no source or document found anywhere even remotely suggests that. Prove to him that John Marshall ruled on the habeas corpus issue in 1807 as has been common knowledge of the legal profession ever since then and he stares the decision's own words down claiming that they do not say what indeed they do say. In a way it's actually somewhat pitiful.
You might actually read the summary quoted from Levy, too.
4ConservativeJustices; Gianni; lentulusgracchus; stand watie
You forgot Curly Joe.
I gather from your posts and his that the original complaint in a contemplated criminal case was "treason" broadly construed, but that the instant case was a petition for a habeas writ. If the other case had been proved, there would be no entertaining a prayer for a writ.
You're right -- he can't say Ex Parte Bollman and Swartout is a treason case, even though it involved treason, inasmuch as, as you say, Marshall wanted to see to it that "treason" should be construed narrowly in the United States, as part of his reasoning for ordering the writ to be granted and the detainees released.