Read the following court brief of marbury v. madison, and suggest improvements. only reply if you understand the format of a court brief and have some knowledge of the marbury v. madison case. you for your assistance!

i. case name: marbury v. madison
ii. statement of facts: supreme court, february 24, 1803; before thomas jefferson became president, john adams appointed william marbury as justice of the peace for the district of columbia. after assuming office, jefferson directed his secretary of state, james madison, to withhold the commission, and, under section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789, marbury petitioned the supreme court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel madison to act.
iii. issues: did marbury have the right to the job? should the supreme court have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws? if it did, and if marbury had the right to the job, would the proper solution be a writ of mandamus from the supreme court?
iv. decision or judgment: chief justice john marshall denied issuing a writ of mandamus. despite marbury’s loss, marshall gained the supreme court the power of judicial review.
v. reasoning: although marbury was lawfully appointed as the justice of the peace, according to section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789, the supreme court authorizing the writ of mandamus is unconstitutional. however, section 13 of the act is unconstitutional since it attempts to expand the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.
vi. other opinions: unanimous decision
vii. summary: although jefferson technically won the case, it established the united states supreme court’s power to determine whether a law passed by congress was constitutional, also called judicial review.
vii. comments and questions: had marshall allowed the writ of mandamus, would it still have been possible for the supreme court to gain judicial review in this case?