This is always talked about as a landmark Supreme Court decision. But I don't get the ruling here.

- Outgoing President John Adams appoints many Federalist judges at the last minute. These are confirmed by Congress.

- He gives the commissions out to be delivered to the new judges so they may assume their position. They cannot take office until they receive their commission.

- For whatever reason, all but 3 commissions are delivered. Marbury is one of the three who does not receive his commission.

- Thomas Jefferson becomes the new President, member of the Democratic-Republican party. Fellow DR party member James Madison becomes his secretary of state.

- Marbury asks Madison to deliver his commission, as the state department handles these appointments after the President has made them, I suppose.

- Madison refuses to give Marbury his commission.

- Marbury's case ends up at the Supreme Court (though I am unclear if it went through lower courts and was constantly appealed or if he went directly to the Supreme Court)

- Chief Justice John Marshall, who was secretary of state under Adams curiously enough, rules that no one can take away one's commission once a president signs it, even if it is lost, there are always copies and that does not mean it never happened. Marbury has a right to his commission therefore. No person can personally withhold a commission either because that goes against the laws of the nation or some such shit. But the Supreme Court does not have a right to order Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. WTF?? If the Supreme Court does not have that right, who the fuck does?

So Marbury never received his commission. I don't fucking get it.

I'm in the process of reading through the tedious actual ruling written by Marshall.

Who has the right to order Madison to deliver the commission? No-one, because the Judiciary Act telling them they can violates the Constitution, which has a Supremacy Clause.

The section granting the supreme court the power to issue a writ of mandamus in the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, so the Supreme Court could not issue the writ because the supreme courts original jurisdiction is limited.

Therefor the Supreme Court could not get involved unless a lower court issued a writ of mandamus and it was challenged and appealed to the supreme court.

Benpari's is the correct answer (that Marbury didn't get his writ of mandamus, because the Court had original and not appellate jurisdiction; See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175: "To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction."), but this topic belongs in I Am The Law.

Benpari's is the correct answer (that Marbury didn't get his writ of mandamus, because the Court had original and not appellate jurisdiction; See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175: "To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction."), but this topic belongs in I Am The Law.

Such is my luck that I would make the thread on the one day of the month you actually show up in Politics, and then move it. I think it would've done better over there.

So the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction whatsoever? If the Supreme Court didn't have the jurisdiction to rule on this case...then why did they? Even so, some court must have jurisdiction over this matter. I don't see how you can set a precedent where it's ok to withhold valid appointments like that. Were they saying a local DC court should rule on it? I mean, I read Marshall's ruling and I don't think he even addresses who should decide this if it is not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. So wtf?

And if it was Jefferson who ordered Madison to withhold Marbury's commission, and Jefferson acted wrongly in doing this, both legally and ethically, is that not grounds for Jefferson's impeachment?