[GOPcapitalist]

Taney was the losing party. His reputation went completely into the toilet, over this and Dred Scott.

You aren't even making sense anymore, Walt. Did you sleep through high school civics class or something? It appears so, because your understanding of our court system is severely lacking. When a case comes up before the court and a ruling is issued, that ruling stands unless it is overturned on appeal. The loser, as in the person who is ruled against in the case, has the right to file an appeal to a higher court or he may simply abide by the decision even though he may not like it. Lincoln lost the Merryman case - it was decided against him and his order was stricken down as unconstitutional. It was therefore his burden to appeal if he did not like the way that the case went. That, or he could have accepted it and abided by the ruling. Simply ignoring it was not a legally valid option.

Notice that Chief Justice Rehnquist says the question of who may suspend the Writ has never been "authoritatively" answered.

And in that he is simply wrong. Or are Marshall, Story, Curtis, and Taney not authorities on matters of the Constitution? If those for men are authorities on the constitution, then it has been authoritatively answered as all four of them answered it. If they are not authorities on the constitution though, I do not know who else is, thus your standard is intentionally set at an unreachable level.

[4CJ]

CJ Rehquist also acknowledged Curtis understanding and agreement of Taney's habeas corupus position (on page 45 IIRC). Curtis had no reason th agree with Taney - he vigorously disagreed with Taney in the Scott decision. The US legislature also wanted an explanation from Lincoln/Bates as to the legality of the Executive suspending the writ.

[WhiskeyPapa]

That, or he could have accepted it and abided by the ruling. Simply ignoring it was not a legally valid option.

Are you suggesting that Chief Justice Rehnquist doesn't know how the court system works?

Walt