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
Dred Scott, Plessy, and Roe are not the issues at hand, Walt.
Well, they certainly are when precedent is discussed. You've indicated that precedent is the "end all" and "be all" to the issue of the Writ. And that simply is ludicrous when we consider bad decisions like the above.
Walt
I am sure there are some famous recusals in the record.
I know Chief Justice Marshall recused himself in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.
He left it for Justice Story to threaten the Virginia Supreme Court with contempt. They backed down, but I digress.
Taney was strongly pro-southern. Apparently he lamented in a letter the failure of the southern states to secede in 1856. Of course the dissent in the Prize Cases only avers that Congress and not the president is the proper agent to put down rebellion and insurrection; Taney is not on the record in a court case, so far as I know, that secession was legal.
I'd say that there is at least reason to question Taney's objectivity now, and President Lincoln had plenty then.
You deny that, but you are not even in shouting distance of objectivity yourself.
Walt
No Walt. That is simply not the case.
It simply --is-- the case, unless you can show that you have information that Chief Justice Rehnquist didn't consider when he said the question of "whether the president may suspend the Writ remains unanswered to this very day."
Walt
LOL!
That's Chief Justice Rehnquist to you, bub.
Walt
Well, the Court has decided a bunch of cases. I only named three bogus ones.
Oh wait, the court has never ruled on the power of the president to suspend the privilege of Habeas Corpus.
But you have now been cajoled into admitting that the Court made a "couple of notable bad decisions."
Maybe ol' Roger made one too.
Walt