If your argument is that any power usurped by the government that isn't contested by that same government is the law of the land
Apparently you don't know what the words "de facto" mean.
I think that the zany antics displayed in Wickard v. Filburn, and the near complete absence of a check on that sort of topsy-turvy decision, pretty clearly demonstrate that the Supreme Court is not really suited to handle judicial review.
And what do you think would be better suited? I can't fathom that someone smart enough to know about Marbury would want Parliamentary Supremacy.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
Congress passes a law, the President signs it, some aggrieved third party says it's unconstitutional. Exactly who do you think should review said law and make the final determination? Near as I can tell, your entire argument against judicial review is that you're unhappy with some of the results.