You do realize the doctrine of judicial review was created extra-constitutionally, right? Marbury v Madison was SCOTUS telling the other two branches, by fiat, that only SCOTUS could render a final, authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. Rather like asking the foxes who should have charge of the hen house, don’t you think?
Jefferson clearly understood Marbury to be a self-serving and unwarranted arrogation of power that was destructive to the principles of the Republic:
“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
As to the remedy? Men and women of principle in the other two branches who have the courage of their convictions, who are willing to defy an unconstitutional judicial fiat of self-imposed constitutional ignorance, who will fulfill the duty of their oath to act within constitutional boundaries even if others by droves are abandoning their post.
From the closing paragraphs of the majority opinion:
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.