I think it's odd that Thom would complain about Marbury v. Madison while agreeing that each branch should answer Constitutional questions for itself. The position of the court in Marbury was that the judicial branch could not force the executive branch (specifically the Secretary of State) to commit an action (specifically sealing and delivering a commission), known as a mandamus ("we mandate"). And the court could not refuse that power without taking on the power of judicial review, which was necessary to make the judgement that they could not make certain judgements.

Jefferson agreed that the court could not effect a mandamus in his letter to Spencer Roane 13 years later. I'd still like to see any mention of Marbury by Jefferson written reasonably soon after the decision. And I'd like to see the letter from Spencer Roane to see what court case Jefferson's letter was actually about. Jefferson says he's bringing up Marbury because it's a case he's familiar with. He does not say it's the case Roane brought up.

Perhaps judicial review would be fine IF Supreme Court justices ALSO had strict ethical standards to meet. They should be deciding cases based upon the law and the Constitution is the central core of the law. Their lifetime appointment was intended to keep them from making political decisions but it didn't go far enough. I think that, while sitting, they and their immediate family should be limited to a generous single salary from the govt. (no outside earnings), and they should be prohibited from any political activity, i.e., no speeches, meetings, conferences, etc. Thom often has said, for example, that they were inventing law in the Roe v Wade opinion. However that opinion had many parts and the central opinion was that under her right to privacy, not explicit but clearly covered in several places in the Bill of Rights, a woman has the choice whether to bear a child, and her health is considered paramount throughout the pregnancy. Until the baby is born she is the person under the law. It wasn't part of the argument but one could well argue that she has freedom of religious belief as well which might govern her choice. Where they got creative was in the part of the opinion that in the 3rd trimester, the state had interest in the viable fetus which limited her options. It is therefore inaccurate to claim the entire opinion was creative and departed from the Constitution. SC opinions often have to have many parts and you can't get good, thought-out opinions withou having justices focused on the issue at hand and applying the law in it's complexity.