You object to the suspension of habeas corpus on constitutional grounds, yet have no objection to failure to establish a branch of government required by the constitution. Why doesn't that surprise me?
Curious. Tu Quoque Boy's tu quoque reasoning is getting sloppy. It is a constitutional right of Congress to set up the court system how it pleases. For better or worse, this also means it takes an affirmative act of Congress to create that court in the first place. If Congress drags its feet and blocks the bill there is effectively nothing constitutionally that may be done to speed it up other than the legislative process. Habeas Corpus, on the other hand, may only be suspended ONE way in the constitution. That is by a vote of the legislature.
Is it a comprehension problem? Totally the opposite. The power to suspend the writ is a power delegated to the legislature. The legislature creates the court system - the The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the US courts including the Supreme Court, 'Be it enacted, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices ...'
The Confederate Congress DID fail to create the Supreme Court, but the President does NOT have legislative powers. The fault was not attributable to President Davis, but to the legislature.
The post to which you replied was done tongue-in-cheek at those that think the President can exercise ANY power in time of war, or because he is not prohibited from doing so.