You are correct that the Court did not issue a writ. But it was not that "it did not have the power to order the executive to do anything" point blank. It this

You are correct that the Court did not issue a writ. But it was not that "it did not have the power to order the executive to do anything" point blank. It this was on a technicality regarding equivalently either who could issue it, or under what jurisdiction SCOTUS could do it. SCOTUS did not have jurisdiction, as the case was not an appeal from a lower court, and the matter was not one SCOTUS could decide in its original jurisdiction. This last bit about the scope of its original jurisdiction is the famous bit, Justice Marshall got there by asserting SCOTUS could strike down legislation as unconstitutional, including the section of Judiciary Act that would have given them the power to issue the writ. It's quite funny. Other than that, Marbury was entitled to the remedy of mandamus, so he should have filed in a lower court instead. If he had, that court could have issued the writ or declined to; so too could SCOTUS have heard an appeal and either issued a writ or declined to. (I can't remember if he subsequently tried this.) My reference to Marbury v. Madison sits in between the 1st and 3rd parts of the decision: we (1st) pretend we've ascertained a similar statement to "having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right", and then ignore the (3rd) jurisdiction problem because it's not relevant, simply assume we're filing in a court that does have this power in its original jurisdiction (most of them do, basically only SCOTUS does not). Bearing in mind that I mainly brought it up to emphasise that this is a problem we've seen before and has better solutions than this guy's idea of getting people to comment on the Board's Facebook page, this is the part (the 2nd part of the decision) that best reflects why I think it's relevant: > It has already been stated that the applicant has, to that commission, a vested legal right, of which the executive cannot deprive him. He has been appointed to an office, from which he is not removable at the will of the executive; and being so appointed, he has a right to the commission which the secretary has received from the president for his use. The act of congress does not indeed order the secretary of state to send it to him, but it is placed in his hands for the person entitled to it; and cannot be more lawfully withheld by him, than by another person. [...] This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; it only remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court. There is clearly an analogy here, not one that is actually a precedent, but an analogy nonetheless. Focus on "an office, from which he is not removable at the will of the executive", which is what this guy has.