I’m not a big fan of Marbury myself. I think it’s allowed the courts to set themselves up as the final arbiters of what is law, even when their rulings are blatantly anti-Constitutional (see Roe, Obergefell).
That is how it has been misrepresented to create the modern Court.
But Marbury has been badly misrepresented. For one it was not the case that saw it considered correct to decide between a statute and the Constitution, something Marshall points out at length. That case, considered unremarkable for the most part, was about a statute that assigned an administrative function to jurists as part of overseeing the pensions of Revolutionary war veterans.
Yet people act as if that wasn’t a thing until Marbury.
Rather Marbury’s decision has a very exacting structure because the question of original jurisdiction, rather than appellate, had been clearly set forth in the Constitution and in the matter of a Writ of Mandamus the Court proper did not have original jurisdiction.
That is why, after Marshall sets forth both the prior history and the plain case for William Marbury and the rest deserving their Writ of Mandamus, Marshall finally get to the real meat of the matter asking if it could be issued from the Court directly rather than on appeal.
What Marshall then does is really poison to progressivism, for he discusses the only proper methodology for review. That methodology is one only rationally destructive of claims for government power, not constructive to make innovations lawful as the modern Court lawlessly maintains.
Most critically after setting forth fidelity required by the oath of office as justification for review, saying that it is worse that a solemn mockery to require them to take such an oath and then to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only statute, Marshall himself notes that those in other departments take such an oath.
So let me ask you, what then is it to require the Congress or a president to take such an oath but then require them to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court if not likewise and for the exact same reasons something worse than a solemn mockery?
Marbury is not the great strength of the modern Court. That is why it must be constantly misrepresented.
We need separation of Bar and Judiciary.