Do you think the judge possessed the legitimate power to issue such an order?
That one doesn't sound good to me. I don't know anything about the case, but part of being a good judge is to avoid getting backed into a corner that leads to an order that is either not self-executing or very difficult to enforce. An order that requires elected officials to make affirmative votes on tax issues would qualify as very difficult to enforce.
Judges can clearly make mistakes. Marshall would have agreed with Jefferson on that score.
Chief Justice Marshall was a powerful personality and he was a forceful advocate for the judicial branch. Prior to him, Supreme Court decisions took the form of separate opinions by each justice. Marshall thought it would enhance the power of the court and its opinions if the Court spoke with one voice - an opinion of the Court. He even encouraged the justices to live and eat together while in Washington to encourage unity.
When Marshall wrote the Court's opinion in Marbury, he had in mind something more than "we're just deciding this little case regarding constitutionality of a law and we don't mean for anyone else to pay any attention to it cuz it's just for this one little case."
Marshall meant what he said - "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
Jefferson disagreed. President Jackson later argued that other branches weren't bound by Supreme Court interpretations. More recently, Nixon hinted that he might ignore a Court order to turn over subpenaed tapes, but those hints were made before the Supreme Court issued its order. After the order, Nixon immediately indicated he would comply with it even though he disagreed with it.
Whether he was right or wrong about the Court's power, Marshall is (at least so far) way ahead on points and if the naysayers want to take back some of that power he grabbed, they better get with it. :)
My point and this thread regards separation of powers as Jefferson briefly discussed.
The KC federal judge (1985) ordered taxes to be raised. He ordered a more than doubling of the real estate millage rate and threatened fines against the commissioners. Rates of taxation are legislative functions.
It was an impeachable offense that would have outraged our Founders. Since he was not impeached, it was also a golden opportunity lost for Congress to remind courts of their just powers.
Marshall's statement was reasonable--the job is to describe the pre-existing law, not to summon the law into being. If the judge is doing his job, what he says the law is, and what the law actually is, will be one and the same. If the judge is not doing his job, however, they may be different. Unfortunately, many people disregard the latter possibility, and figure that whatever the judge says is the law.