And John Marshall was just that sort of man. In Marbury v. Madison he made a brilliant case (many would say "airtight") for judicial review as a power implicit in Article III, a power that necessarily followed from Article III. Congress could easily have voted out an amendment to the states abolishing judicial review if they had wanted to. They've done this sort of thing before, eg. the income tax, women's suffrage, popular election of US senators, etc. Why do you suppose they didn't do this concerning judicial review? Afterall, when Marshall decided Marbury Congress lost power to the judiciary (Marshall struck down an act of Congress). Why didn't Congress at least try to assert itself against that? Indeed, why has it never made such an attempt?
Just something to think about...
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered and debated the subject of judicial review. Some, such as Hamilton, wanted it explicitly enumerated. Others wanted it explicitly forbidden. Nobody could agree so it was left an open question (as many others were) to be resolved as time went by. Cocerning this controversy, Jefferson made a remark that is either his most naive or his most disingenuous (I can't decide which), namely, that if a conflict arose between the court and the Congress or between the court and the executive, reason and fairplay would prevail. He certainly got his chance to find out!
Britain is an example of a country that has no judicial review. In that country, Parliament is the court of last appeal. That's right -- the legislative body that thinks its countrymen cannot be trusted with guns or even with kitchen knives is the final arbiter in matters of law. Some prefer that system. I like the one we've got.