you had roger taney whose reputation would be quite different if it weren't for this one case. looking at it and saying the other branches are working, the issue was threatening to destroy the country. i'm going to solve it. i am the only one who can. i'm more less took it upon myself to lead the court into a resolution that was dividing the country, and in a broadway that really had no basis in a proper reading of the constitution and in a situation that could have been resolved in either way on much narrower grounds that would have preserved the court above the fray. i did not think we could have avoided the civil war, but i am suggesting that the court as an institution could have been able to play a more effective role as the crisis evolved. and certainly after the civil war if it had not suffered the self-inflicted wound. when you look at marbury for the lessons you can draw, developing a broad degree of consensus so the court can approach the case in narrow grounds, whether they're leaving right of way or avoiding politicization. democratic republicans, the debt -- the je