Cases are frequently misconstrued, even (maybe especially) by courts.
Marbury v. Madison is cited for the proposition that the Court can set or make law (which it can); but by "reading on" a mere two paragraphs, one cannot escape the statment by Marshall that Courts must rule in subservience to the Constitution, and to statute - and when THOSE two authorities clash, it is the Constitution that must prevail.
That's a point that I've constantly tried to make to others on this amd other fora, often to little avail. Marshall was saying, not that the court had the "power" to strike down unconsitutional laws, but that it was powerless to uphold them. That's a very important distinction.