Do you realize that the first two cases you quoted are pre-FISA? Meaning they're way beside the point.
The third case mentioned merely decides that FISA is Constitutional. FISA of course is the law which Bush claims authority to ignore, so a case dealing with FISA's constitutionality in no way addresses the real issue -- whether the President is free to ignore the supposedly Constitutional law.
Finally, the last case you quoted only goes to show the absurdity of the administration's defense. I mean, the President claims that the AUMF rendered FISA a nullity. So why then did he push to get FISA amended 5 weeks after he was supposedly authorized to ignore FISA altogether? And don't you see the irony in his going to court to defend the post-911 FISA changes? Remember, this is the law which he claims he doesn't have to follow. Why would he care what the court had to say when he was free to ignore them anyway?
Essentially, not one of those cases you quoted addresses the real question. Can the President constitutionally conduct surveillance which is explicitly forbidden by statute?
They keep posting those case cites because they are exactly on point! You see, it doesn't matter whether the case is pre-FISA or post-FISA, the constitutional principle remains the same: If the President's authority emanates from a grant in the Constitution, then that trumps Congresses law (like FISA). And that is precisely what the courts have held, "the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information". The Constitution trumps FISA.
Incorrect, in Duggan the court held that the narrow areas of FISA they were asked to review, were constitutional, not the whole act. Moreover, and as the court stated, "virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment". And the Constitution trumps FISA.
The President raised a number of affirmative defenses, including both the issue of the AUMF, as well as asserting powers granted him under Article II of the Constitution.
Now you're making things up. The President has never said that he could ignore FISA altogether or that FISA, in general, is a law that "he doesn't have to follow". The President's position is narrowly drawn in regards to his Presidential authority and FISA, and he has only construed it as he did for cases of foreign intelligence intercepts.
Again, you are making things up. Contrary to what your statement suggests, the President has ignored no review court holding regarding foreign intelligence intercepts. Furthermore, no review court has ever held that the President is required to use the provisions of FISA to obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence intercepts. Virtually every review court that has ruled on the matter, recognized the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. The Constitution trumps FISA.
Funny, in a strange way that is a true statement, it isn't just "one" case, but all of them. And there are many more that, for sake of brevity, I haven't posted here.