[inquest]

In Marbury v Madison, the USSC asserted its power to review acts of Congress.

Actually it asserted its obligation to review acts of Congress. It's a subtle but important difference. The court is simply to determine whether a law is constitutional, not to decide whether it's consitutional. It has an obligation to determine correctly, but that doesn't mean that its determinations are automatically correct.

The SC under John Marshall emphasized that...the SC is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution.

He did not say that SCOTUS is the final authority. What he did say was this: "...a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Clearly, according to him, the courts must conform to the law, not the other way around.

[Reagan Man]

This has nothing to do with being obliged to review acts of Congress. It's all about the power! The USSC has the final say on all matters of Constitutional law. That's the way its been for 200 years. In 1973 the SC came to a conclusion that abortion was a womens right under Constitutional law. That's power. It goes to the reason why the pro-abortion forces are so worried about Bush43 getting opportunities to replace two of the sitting SC justices. Roe v Wade could be overturn, if say O'Conner and Stevens retire and Bush gets to appoint jurists like Luddig or Kozinski to the high court.

>>>He did not say that SCOTUS is the final authority.

I never said that. You're the one editorializing my remarks .....dot dot dot dot dot dot ........

>>>Clearly, according to him, the courts must conform to the law, not the other way around.

You'd think so. But that's not the case.