Executive's job, but it reminds me of Jackson's supposed, let the court enfoce it.Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?
Yes. Most people without a legal background find the notion odd, but the purpose of appellate courts is to apply these foundation legal doctrines that exist outside and predate the Constitutional framework.
And a clause granting judicial review would not have strengthened the Court. The Court's power of review is pretty firmly ingrained at this point. The bigger threat is lack of enforcement power.
The Jacksonian threat was an important one, and if you'll recall, the Court backed down to keep it from spread. The same idea has a lot of life for the next 30-40 years, and often for causes we'd consider good and noble. Lincoln's speech on Dred Scott refers to this idea that the Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the laws.