Even the earliest progressives in the 19th century were against everything this country was founded to be. They wanted what the French Republic had: a government with loosely defined responsibilities and the means to achieve it left entirely up to the political process.
A form of what the Founders called Arbitrary government.
The reason they hated Marbury for so long is because properly understood it actually prevented everything that they wanted, for the ability to review statutes was clearly presented as an obligation arising only from a greater fidelity on account of an oath to the Law and not what 20th century progressives have misrepresented it as the right for the courts to make stuff up as they go along. And an obligation arising from fidelity offers no pretext for infidelity.
And, while you’re at it, you may want to consider Frothingham from, IIRC, 1913, which stripped private persons from having Standing to pursue a private prosecution of a public right: IOW challenge the government when it exceeds its enumerated powers.
Progressives have ALWAYS been various shades of un-American. And they started bad and have only become worse.
I’m not a big fan of Marbury myself. I think it’s allowed the courts to set themselves up as the final arbiters of what is law, even when their rulings are blatantly anti-Constitutional (see Roe, Obergefell).