The way I read Marbury v. Madison, I conclude that the Supreme Court of the U.S. came up with 3 conclusions:
- Mr. Marbury was definitely appointed & commissioned by the departing president.
- Mr. Marbury deserves to have his commission given to him, as required by law (or a copy of it from the official record) so that he may start serving his office.
- HOWEVER, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot order the U.S. Secretary of State to give Mr. Marbury his rightful commission for office because the Court does not have original jurisdiction, but only appellate jurisdiction. (In this last conclusion the Supreme Court declared a law from Congress that gave them original jurisdiction as unconstitutional).
My question is as follows: why didn't Mr. Marbury prevail in the end? That is to say, why didn't he transfer his lawsuit to one of the inferior courts? His case would have been a slam dunk there! After all, the U.S. Supreme Court had already declared that he really was appointed, and that he deserved his commission. And even if, for some strange reason the lower court did not rule in his favor, he could then APPEAL to the Supreme Court, at which point the Court would THEN have jurisdiction, and given its prior analysis, would have to rule in Mr. Marbury's favor.
I decided to post my question here since there is no "law" or "constitutional law" SE. Maybe one should be created?