Your source is inventing a contradiction where none exists.
Well, one surely does exist. If placement dictates a ruling in one, then to be consistant, it must be the same in all others.
Taney was borderline treasonous himself. Just being the Chief Justice doesn't give one the right to let the country go to hell.
Walt
Where, Walt? Simply saying that a contradiction exists does not make it so, nor does the obsessive repetition of that previous assertion.
Your source essentially said:
P1. The Habeas Corpus power was decided by Taney in Merryman to belong to Congress due to its placement.
P2. In an earlier case Taney stated that the fugitive slave law is authorized by the Constitution.
CONCLUSION. (non-sequitur) Therefore the two rulings were inconsistent.
That conclusion does not flow from the relation of either premise, as neither premise says anything contradicting the other. Therefore the conclusion does not stand.
Care showing exactly what Taney did that was "treasonous," Walt?