[WhiskeyPapa]

The only reason that never happened is because Lincoln, the loser, refused to appeal his loss to the full court.

Merryman would have rendered a service far greater to the insurgency than burning bridges if he had gotten this issue before the whole Court. Taney could have made that happen.

But he didn't. Getting the issue before the whole court was a trump card he couldn't play because his ruling in Merryman had no support in a fair reading of law and precedent.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Merryman would have rendered a service far greater to the insurgency than burning bridges if he had gotten this issue before the whole Court. Taney could have made that happen.

Not under the statutory process of appeals established as law in the United States. Tell me, Walt. If you WON a court case would you go out and appeal it? Not only would you lack grounds to get them to take it, but your act would serve no purpose since you had already won. The loser does have standing to appeal though and a reason to do so, that being to overturn the ruling against him. In Merryman Lincoln was the loser and therefore had the burden of appeal.

[GOPcapitalist]

his ruling in Merryman had no support in a fair reading of law and precedent.

False. As Justice Curtis so succinctly noted the next year, EVERY SINGLE PRECEDENT that existed on the matter as well as the law's plain reading was against Lincoln's position. That is a matter of simple indisputable fact.