Okay, so you have no problem with the court reading itself all kinds of new powers (and it's the only branch that can just up and decide to do that - laws can be vetoed by the President and Congress can be voted out of office and changed...) Gotcha.
It bothers me though.....
My point is exactly this: that the court can make any ruling it wants and it doesn't mean diddley without a willing executive to use his police power to carry it out. As President Andrew Jackson (may have) said: "[Chief Justice] Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." The court in fact had no way to enforce it (Worcester v Georgia, 1832). Something went wrong between that and Dred Scott when the President and Congress became obsequious to the Supreme Court and the courts became above the law. I am saying you are mistaken and misdirected if you think it was Marbury v Madison. The court is just as bad sometimes when it upholds a law (e.g. McCain-Feingold).