A Loophole the Size of an Elephant

In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the practice of common law was established as an ideal part of the U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark Cases uses a quote from Chief Justice John Marshall in order to explain common law; "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Over time, decisions during court cases demonstrate how a specific law works. Future cases shall refer back to previous cases in order to reach a decision regarding a current case.

The practice of judicial review is established in this famous case, but what if a case arose to challenge this ideal of allowing the Supreme Court to review a law. Is it possible for the practice of common law to undergo judicial review? The ultimate paradox to the idea of judicial review. Would congress dismiss an argument that could jeopardize the cornerstone of the Supreme Court? Imagine if common law was abolished, cases would not be open for discussion.