You sound like a broken record. The determining rule here is ratio decidendi - not your invented standard of suspension. If the constitutional power of suspension is a part of the case's ratio decidendi, what the ruling says about it is valid precedent. This was the case in Bollman and multiple federal courts have affirmed it since then. You cannot show even one though that says otherwise.
Watching you in action gives one a whole new take on ineptness.
Say what you will, but just keep in mind that you're the one who just incorrectly attributed the Milligan decision to Chase instead of Davis, and falsely presented the AG's oral argument as a part of the case's ruling. That sort of crap works only in Non Sequitur land, where the dissenting author becomes the majority and the Attorney General's statement becomes the opinion itself.
As do you.
The determining rule here is ratio decidendi - not your invented standard of suspension.
If ratio decidendi is to apply then doesn't one side or the other have to include it in their case? Yet I'm not aware of any arguements by the government or by the defense that raised the issue of suspension of the writ.
It's kind of a shame that Chief Justice Marshall couldn't have worked in some comments on abortion and gun control into the Bollman decision. Just imagine how much trouble it would have saved us? And it's not like it had to happen or anything. In your world the court can rule on something that hasn't happened, like suspension of habeas corpus.