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
No Walt. Only when those particular precedents are discussed. Tearing down all other valid precedents by simple association with a court that previously erred on a few notorious cases is an unsupportable argument. Taken to its ends, no precedent is left standing including your beloved Prize Cases. Is that the way you want things, Walt? Because if it is, by all means argue it. I'll only expect that you won't be quoting the Prize Cases anytime soon.
You've indicated that precedent is the "end all" and "be all" to the issue of the Writ.
Not at all, Walt. Simply the standing rule deciding the matter of habeas corpus that is on the books today. Rehnquist has every right to disagree with it all he wants, but his opinion is only that, announced informally at a law school speech of absolutely no legal consequence, whereas the precedent of Bollman carries with it the weight of a court ruling.