Which, if any, of gibson's arguments against judicial review remain relevant today?

Gibson's argument in the case was that the judiciary has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. This still rings true.

Explanation:

The landmark case of Eakin v Raub was one that sparked debate and controversy on constitutional bounds and rights of the judiciary.

Justice Marshall had offered many arguments that despite the constitution not giving the judiciary explicit power to make laws unconstitutional, it is to bee one of the powers of judiciary.

In Justice Gibson's argument, it must be taken for granted that the judiciary has power over the legislature for the laws to be declared unconstitutional which fits in with the debate on powers of the houses.