You need to look at Borden, and Moyer and refute what Dr. Farber's research indicates. But you can't do that, so you just dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
But maybe it doesn't matter:
"The Court’s claim to be the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution has been vigorously challenged, not least by occupants of the White House. The dispute has existed since early in our history. …Jefferson den [ied] the right they [judges like Marshall] usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution.” If the judges had this right, vis-à-vis the other branches of government, the Constitution would be self-defeating. “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the nation.” If judges had the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape in any form they please.” In Jefferson’s view, “[E]ach department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.”
--"Lincoln's Constitution" P. 181 by Daniel Farber
Note that the bolded quote is semantically the same as what President Lincoln said in his first inaugural.
Walt
Farbers research does not indicate what you claimed in your previous statement: "The Court has ruled, in several cases, that the president -can- suspend the Writ." Therefore a refutation of it is not necessary to address you as of yet unsubstantiated claim. Since you refuse to quote any case that supports that statement I will continue to take that as a concession that you do not have anything.