The matter should have been taken to the full court. However, the court wasn't in session and wouldn't be until December. By then the matter was moot.
Even if you think Marshall’s plain statement of the law wasn’t binding, the issue was decided by a sitting federal court and Lincoln ignored it. He had no respect whatsoever for Rule of Law. He was, in fact, a tyrant.
Starting to foam a little at the mouth, aren't we? I agree that sometimes the rule of law can be frustrating, but what apparently is frustrating you is that the law isn't what you say it is merely because you say it. You'll just have to learn to live with the disappointment.
But getting back to Merryman for a moment. You know that the government did later provide the writ and indict Merriman for his crimes, don't you? But Chief Justice Taney refused to allow the case to be removed from his docket, and also refused to schedule a trial. He delayed the whole matter until the day he died. So don't you find it interesting that when it came to getting his day in Court it was the Chief Justice that denied it to Merryman and not the Lincoln administration?
No, I'm not foaming at the mouth. I find it interesting that for the entire history of the English common law, the executive had no authority to suspend the writ (it was a power beyond even the King), the Constitution explicitly charges Congress, not the President, with the power to suspend the writ, and that every single time the issue has been before a federal court, the court has held that the President has no such power, yet, despite all this, you still argue that it is lawful for the President to suspend the writ.
I admit that my mind is boggled by those who are utterly unable to grasp facts before them.