<P> Marbury v. Madison involved a highly partisan set of circumstances . Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March . The Federalist Party had lost the elections . In the words of President Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams . In the last - minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall had neglected to deliver 17 of the commissions to their respective appointees . When James Madison took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered . Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the appointees, including William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties . Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions . </P> <P> Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was then led by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was the Secretary of State . If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court . Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak . Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission . However, Justice Marshall contended that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, since it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving the States or ambassadors . The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch . </P> <P> However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, expressed the view that the Courts hold only the power of words, and not the power of compulsion upon those other two branches of government, upon which the Supreme Court is itself dependent . Then in 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review: </P> <P> You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps...Their power (is) the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots . It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves . </P>

When a president must appoint a justice to the supreme court