You don't read very well, do you? The Taney Court upheld Lincoln's exercise of war powers in the Prize Cases (1863). Farber writes (p 140-141), quoting from the opinion:
"'If war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.' Whether the hostile force is a foreign invader or a rebellious state, 'it is none the less war.' When the rebellion burst out, the president 'was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.'"
Farber adds, "The Court roundly rejected the argument that 'insurgents who have risen in rebellion against their sovereign' are 'not enemies because they are traitors.' As a belligerent, the United States was entitled 'not only to coerce the other by direct force, but also to cripple his resources by the seizure or destruction of his property.' this applied to everyone living in Confederate territory. 'They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors.'"
"No supreme court ruling has ever upheld Lincoln's claimed power to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally. Two supreme court rulings have rejected the notion that the power he exercised belongs to the president though..."
No Supreme Court ever directly ruled on the constitutionality of Lincoln's action with regard to the suspension (of the privilege of) the writ of habeas corpus.
Okay, then, any ruling on Executive suspension of habeas corpus? Any quote at all, allowing the Executive to suspend the writ at a time and place of the Executive Branch's choosing?
Truth time.
Oh, so it's "war powers" now? You going to try to sweep suspensions of habeas corpus into a catchall "war power", and then claim that Lincoln has infinite authority if a gun goes off?
Oh, brother.
Where is Farber getting all the purple rhetoric you're quoting, anyway? (Let's pretend for five seconds he has any authority to put up against Scalia, who's saying Farber is full of it.)
Oh I read just fine, capitan, and considering that your comments came in the middle of a discussion about habeas corpus in which you specifically made your comment,
You are a broken record. Lincoln acted in a crisis and his warpowers were upheld by the Supreme Court.
...in response to my comment, which you also directly quoted...
Affirmation of the consequent. Habeas Corpus had to be constitutionally suspended in the first place and Lincoln never established that it had been"...that is the context that I read it in. Did you intend for there to be any other? Or, being the habitual filthy liar that you are, did you simply intend to divert attention onto another subject so as to obfuscate the fact that you cannot sustain your illogical and irrational position on habeas corpus.