If Roe v Wade is the law of the land, why isn’t Marbury v Madison?

[Sixgunsound]

The responses to this question promise to be entertaining.

[ManofHistory]

Let me explain my opinion before people make up their mind and not read the rest, lol.
Roe V. Wade isn't really the law of the land. State laws have been fighting the ruling of Roe V. Wade since it happened in 1973. Personally, I am not sure if the ruling of Roe V. Wade should of ever happened. I agree that women should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies, for the most part, but I don't think it should of been a federal government issue.
As for Marbury V. Madison, isn't that still a very prominent ruling that gives the courts judicial review? It is the ruling that basically allows people to hold the federal and state governments accountable through the courts?

[msc545]

Well - not exactly.

"Marbury v. Madison is important because it established the power of judicial review for the U. S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution and eventually for parallel state courts with respect to state constitutions. The exercise of judicial review would help to ensure that the judiciary remained a coequal branch of government alongside the legislative and executive branches."

[ManofHistory]

@msc545 Isn't that what I said? lol
Personally, I still think that Marbury V. Madison is more important and possibly the most important supreme Court ruling in it's history.

[Sixgunsound]

The part most people gloss over is the part where anything repugnant to the constitution is automatically null and void. I. e. almost everything that came after it.

[purplepoppy]

The responses to this question seem to be pretty non existent.

[Sixgunsound]

I understand it’s not a sexy or eye catching topic, but thank you for responding.