Nope, that was a circular joke.
You said earlier in this thread (#7) that "settled law" should mean nothing to the Right, that we should only look to the Constitution itself. Quoting an FDR-era SCOTUS ruling is hardly the same as quoting the Constitution.
I take it that you have nothing to add. If you had something to add you would have added the constitutional language giving the judiciary war powers. Since only Congress and the Executive are mentioned in the same sentence with war, I understand your dilemna.
More circular logic. You're the one who's insisting that this is a case of the judiciary exercising war powers. I've already pointed out to you that this is in reality a case of the executive branch exercising judiciary powers, and the judiciary branch holding the executive to the law.
Having "war powers" doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law when exercising those powers. If you disagree, feel free to point to the constitutional provision that supports you on that.