I did a pros and cons of Jackson's presidency a while back here. In short though, Jackson dominated all facets of his presidency, found new ways to accumulate political power via appeals to the public and working through party papers, oversaw robust economic growth, navigated through the greatest challenge to the constitution since the crisis of the 1790's, accomplished almost all major pieces of legislation sans compromise of 1833, became arguably the first modern president and the first to use the bully pulpit, founded the first political party in American history, and created a powerful legacy that has lasted well into the 20th century. Regardless of your personal feelings or Jackson's moral shortcomings, he was an extremely effective president and likely the most powerful president until Lincoln

Some of the decisions and positions he took which did esteem him more to later historians and pundits include his views on elections and popular sovereignty, his position on Nullification, and his stance on the Federal Workforce and political appointment.

He more than any President before turned the election and Presidency into the popular office it is today, with a real sense of the populace voting for the President not just Electors and truly energized the electorate after his feelings of being robbed in 1824. he also repeatedly called for the elimination of the Electoral College, so a stance certainly not out of the mainstream today.

Besides his conflict with the Bank of the US, he also turned his famous temper at the Executive Dept. He repeatedly sought to expel and remove those officials he found or thought to be corrupt. Often though that meant anyone who was his enemy was gone, but he also did pass real reforms in the federal workforce. Unfortunately by the end it meant that most of his workers were people who agreed with him because he found ways to fire everyone who didnt, and in the end backfired from his goal and lead to an even worse spoils system that would last in some ways even to today.

Though his contentious nature and distrust of the Establishment as he perceived it meant that he kept his Kitchen Cabinet of close advisors because of the fallout of the Eaton affair. That did have the effect though of separating from the most staunchly Pro Slavery Democrats such as Calhoun. While he was no Abolitionist he was above all seeking to just keep a lid on Sectional tension so sought to keep the firebrands from north and South in line, which is more or less where most of hi group fell, though with a pro slavery tint.

And finally he was unabashedly Pro Federal Government. And who would not hear a whiff of "States Rights" and his threatening to march Federal Troops to South Carolina over the Nullification Crisis. While personally sympathetic to South Carolina's complaints over the tariff, he would not tolerate a state attempting to usurp or weaken the Union. Obviously a position made much more popular today by the same choice made by Lincoln.

While I can't say exactly why historians would rank him as such, there are several elements of the Jackson presidency that are historically notable.

1. His election represented a fundamental shift in the nature of American democracy. He was the first true populist president. While before his election, political power was controlled almost exclusively by wealthy landowners, his party (the so-called second Democratic Party) was the first to appeal to the masses.
2. His handling of the Nullification Crisis (by threatening to send troops into South Carolina) solidified the sovereignty of the federal government over the states. His decisive ability to deal with such a crisis contrasts with the presidents who followed him, most of whom turned a blind eye to the growing sectional divide.
3. As for the so called "Indian removal act," this is one of the most complex elements of Jackson's legacy. While advocating for the act, he repeated claimed that its goal was to prevent the complete destruction of the southern tribes. While certainly a convenient political justification, the historical precedent was clearly there. He saw northern opponents as hypocrites, as they had silently presided over an almost total annihilation of northern tribes. Taken this way, the act can be seen as an attempt by Jackson to preserve rather than to destroy southern tribes, who would almost certainly have been totally wiped out by aggressive settlers. While he may have presided over this part of Indian removal, he was not the architect of the policy (negative interactions with Native Americans had been common since the colonial era).

Additionally, one of the problems with relative ratings is that many of the US Presidents (especially those in the 1800s) are either forgettable or actively negligent. Jackson gets a bump for being pivotal to the shaping of democracy in the United States.

side note on Cherokee removal: I was under the impression it was a direct result of the Georgia Gold Rush in the early '30s and pushed for by VP Calhoun given his mining interests?

because he did what needed to be done and wasnt a pussy about , i dont think america would be america without his will