Both Merryman and Dred Scott both pretty much blast Taney's reputation completely out of the water.
But even with Taney in their back pocket, the slave holders didn't even consider (apparently) going before the court. Why do you think that was?
You've seen this before:
"Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."
Remarks of Supreme Court Chief Justice William A. Rehnquist
Director's Forum, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
November 17, 1999
Your position is not supported by the record, and yet you continue to push it. Why is that?
Walt
Unfortunately for you, Chief Justice Rehnquist's comments are not shrouded in a decision, and are only his personal opinion. And if Rehnquist actually believes that statement, then I would have to change my opnion of him and his knowledge of the Constitution.
So, where were we? You had stated that "there is nothing in the Constitution or in case law to keep the president from suspending the Writ." You posted the allegations and personal sentiment, I posted statements from at least three decisions, commonly known as facts. Even Justice Marshall disagrees with you.