[GOPcapitalist]

As Lincoln was perfectly within his constitutional responsibilities to suspend the privilege of the writ habeas in the absense of Congress, and was eventually given that authority by leglisation for the duration of the conflict, it was also reasonable to detain wayward judges.

Your claim is illogical as it presumes the very matter of dispute before the court to have been true. It also presumes the foresight of a congressional act that did not happen for another two years and assumes that what Judge Merrick did, which was legally authorized under the unchanged and standing laws of congress, was somehow "wayward" on an unspecified and arbitrary decision of the executive. In short, capitan, you are full of it.

[Red Phillips]

GOPcapitalist,
You just don't get it. In their depraved little world, going against Emperor...err...President Lincoln is de-facto proof that he was wrong. A little debating trick they learned from their other hero, Leo Strauss. You see, we are all just supposed to cower before the State and hope they throw us a few crumbs. Or, better yet, if you really want to get ahead, you boot-lick the State. Become a house slave, if you will.

[capitan_refugio]

The privilege of the writ of habeas was suspended, for the precise reasons provided in the Constitution. No judge, federal or local, was empowered to enforce the writ where it was suspended. Those that sought to do so, did at their own peril. You may recall Taney only tried it once.