Why? I've seen discussions of the founding era where the read seems to have been that the founder's scripted us a dynamic balance and not a final authority. Look up "popular sovereignity".
I think some of the Founders did see it the way you see it. However, I don't see how that could work. Marbury itself did work at least to a large degree for about 150 years. It was only after the Court decided that it was not bound by the law, and that it was in charge, that the problem arose. What we need to do, really, is revamp not only the courts, but also our law schools. When I was in law school, they taught us that the Constitution was a "living document," and that the courts had a responsibility to change their interpretation of the Constitution in order to meet the challenges of the times, and to "do justice."
Now we have a whole generation of lawyers which thinks that's the way things should be, and that the legislature and executive are merely road bumps on the Court's journey to utopia.