More importantly than the appointment, this case set precedent that gave power to the US Supreme Court to make decisions without leaving it in the hands of the legislator and executive alone.

Not bad on the individual issues of the case, but with John Marshell declaring the Judiciary Act null and void, he upset the balance of power and system of checks and balances established by the still new Constitution. Now, judical review has paved the way for the dicatorship of the judiciary in which we currently live. Judiciary appoints are such a big issue now because the court has far more power than any other branch of government - this is the result Marbury v. Madison.

It is safe to assume that without Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion, 'Marbury v. Madison', the right to judicial review might never have been established. Perhaps the most significant decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court, the reason why most Constitutional historians rate this landmark case as the most significant is that it established the exclusive right of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of legislation. Simply, without judicial review, the important social issues which have helped shape the course of U.S. history most likely would not have been decided in the courts. Instead, they would have been decided in either the executive OR legislative branch of government, setting an otherwise dangerous precedent as either of these branches of the Federal Government would have become all too-powerful. Needless to say, judiciary itself would have become just another useless branch of government. In writing 'Marbury v. Madison', Marshall completed the all-important ideal of a system of checks and balances- crucial to the survival of a true democracy. And in a true and thriving democracy such as in the United States, all the branches of government must remain equal.

Dictatorship of the judiciary? I think you've been listening to too much radio.

Though not hugely imporant at the time of the ruling the impact this case has had on our form of government is immeasurable. The case stemmed from a Writ for a commission given to Marbury by John Adams. When Madison, the Secretary of State under Jefferson, failed to deliver the Writ (which had originally been failed to be delivered by none other than John Marshall when he was Secretary of State under Adams), Marbury sued under the newly pased Judiciary Act that expanded the role of the Supreme Court under the authority given to it under article 3 section 2 of the constitution. However instead of ruling on the issue Justice Marshall invalidated the context under which it was being heard setting the precedent of judicial review. His argument was that the original text of the constituion could not be expanded by acts of congress short of amendment. Many have argued (mostly conservatives) this was never the intent of founders, however I disagree- it was. There also is a strong argument that in this case there is a substative point to be made regarding clause 2 of the pertinent article giving exception to congress for this power. However, in light of Federalist #78 Hamilton explictly states that supreme judgement as to the text of the constitution was left to the judiciary branch and that this check was to protect against the encroachments by the legislature on liberty. It must be noted however in subsequent years precedents have been set that exceed the boundaries of judicial authority starting with Lochner v New York whereby the constitution became an ends in and of itself- not a means to an ends. This new philosophy has lead the judiciary to embark on a new course wholly unprescribed by the limitations of the constitution and in essence each ruling dictating remedy is unconstitutional. The precendent set in Marbury v Madison however if not skillfully crafted by such an adroit jurist could have neutered the supreme court forever.