Given the various interpretations of the Constitution which we commonly see, we would be living in anarchy if there wasn't a way to "settle" issues with interpretation in a way which prevents civil war every time factions disagree.
For the most part I think our nation has done pretty well despite the limitations of a two hundred year old Constitution. Had Hillary won the election I wouldn't feel nearly as good about it.
Actually it did not establish judicial review -- it said that the court had a duty to recognize/prioritize the Constitution because, should a normal legislative action contrary to the Constitution be held valid then the Constitution would be meaningless, and because of this requiring the court to act as if the contrary law were of equal or higher import would be, well, insane.
And, I would argue that it's every branch of government's job to read, understand, and ensure that the Constitution is being followed (w/i their own legitimate spheres of authority)... but even moreso, it's the Citizens job to read/understand the Constitution.