Rehnquist may disagree, and it is my understanding that he holds personally that the issue is debatable, but to say that the court has not ruled on it is to deny court precedent.
The court has ruled in Dred Scott and Plessey v. Furguson, to say nothing of Roe v. Wade. I guess you are coming down on the side of abortion on demand, simply because of court precedent. There are higher laws than U.S. law, but I digress.
Taney had no right deciding anything about Merryman. I found this online:
"Taney was aggressively pro-Southern. He has been described as a Jacksonian Unionist (Jackson appointed him), but his Unionism was not all that solid. In an 1856 letter to his son-in-law. Taney predicted the election of Fremont or Fillmore, and lamented that South would not successfully secede."
Taney went outside what he should have done in ruling on Merryman.
I don't know what Chief Justice Rehnquist's thought process in saying that the issue of the president's power to suspend the Writ has never yet been authoritatively decided.
But I know this whole thing comes down to his opinion versus yours. And your's is just as partisan as anything Taney ever did.
Walt
Dred Scott, Plessy, and Roe are not the issues at hand, Walt. Bollman and Merryman are. Following your logic, every single case in US history included your beloved Prize Cases may be discredited on the grounds that the court has made a couple of notable bad decisions. Such reasoning is fallacious as it ammounts to nothing more than discrediting by institutional association while simultaneously neglecting the intrinsic merits of the actual case at hand. Try again.
I guess you are coming down on the side of abortion on demand, simply because of court precedent.
No Walt. That seems to be the position of your political party, not mine.
Taney had no right deciding anything about Merryman.
His jurisdiction was proper, his authority was within the bounds of the judicial system, the case had standing, the case was relevant, and no reasonable cause exists to force self recusal. Therefore Taney had every right to rule on the case. Sorry Walt, but the fact that YOU don't like the outcome and nothing more is simply not grounds to dismiss a ruling.
I found this online: "Taney was aggressively pro-Southern. He has been described as a Jacksonian Unionist (Jackson appointed him), but his Unionism was not all that solid.
Judges have rights to political leanings too, Walt. Some are conservative, some are liberal and so forth. That YOU don't like a properly seated judge's political leanings is no grounds to deny the legality of his rulings. You can debate them, say they're in error, and try to get them overturned, but simply not liking the judge personally doesn't cut it. Try again.
Taney went outside what he should have done in ruling on Merryman.
How so? You keep saying that yet you have not demonstrated in any way why Taney was not within his jurisdiction to rule on that case. Absent that, I may dismiss your rantings as irrelevant nonsense.
But I know this whole thing comes down to his opinion versus yours.
No Walt. That is simply not the case. What is at issue here is --my-- opinion based on the historical precedents pertaining to habeas corpus versus --your-- opinion based on an irrational desire to protect The Lincoln from any and all concessions of error or flaw on his part.
In supporting my opinion I have called upon the current standing court precedent on habeas corpus, the opinion of two chief justices, and the actual ruling made in response to The Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. In supporting your opinion you have called upon a cut n' paste charade of nonsense from some newsgroup, a speech at a law school by Bill Rehnquist, and your own irrational bloviations.
I think it is obvious who has the stronger case. And your's is just as partisan as anything Taney ever did. Walt