I seem to recall Abraham Lincoln (arguably one of our best presidents if not
the best) also had a run in with the USSC over habis Corpus...
I have not ever witnessed any serious historical fallout concerning his
legacy...

This was quite a contentious issue in Lincoln's time.

The prevailing opinion is that the executive may suspend the Writ of Habeas
Corpus. The "executive" doesn't even have to be president. Andrew Jackson
suspended the Writ at New Orleans in 1814. Of course with no easy access to
Washington and the British literally at the gates, he had to act.

Lincoln did suspend the Writ. He was never challenged by the Supreme Court. The
Chief Justice did write an Ex Parte decision in his role as circuit judge
excoriating the president, but the matter of whether the president may suspend
the writ has not been authoritatively answered even now.

The Chief Justice, Taney, had said he favored a dissolution of the Union if it
meant that slavery was threatened, so he was not very objective. This was the
same Taney that ruled in the "Dred Scott" ruling that blacks had no rights that
whites were obligated to acknowledge, despite the fact that blacks could vote
in 5 states.

The question is why Bush has not just suspended the Writ, instead of suggesting
he is above the law, which is the clear implication of the actions he's taken
so far.

Walt