Yes it has, Walt. We've been over this before and you dishonestly ignore it every time.
"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revision that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws." - John Marshall for the majority, Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout (1807)
Maybe ol' Roger made one too.
No, not really. Considered on its own merits, Taney's ruling in Merryman is thoroughly backed by sound constitutional reasoning and extensive court precedent. But that doesn't seem to be of interest to you. You'd rather attack Taney personally than consider the merits of his ruling.
Those damm courts! Always trying to tarnish our noble hero lawbreakers like Andrew Jackson and Linclon.