> Should an unelected judge who serves for life be allowed to levy local taxes against citizens? There is no doubt that the judge was trying to protect the rights of minorities, but how far should they be allowed to go in order to do so?

How tightly can one define, in legal terms, a distinction between this particular situation and the more general "JUDGE LEVY TAX GOOD"? It seems to me that this was a situation where the judge was, in effect, ordering that the enforcement of a prior ruling. The ruling could have been avoided altogether if the people had voted to raise the taxes themselves, just as a contempt of court fine can be avoided if people in court refrain from disruptive behavior during a hearing. It's not quite the same, of course, but I can see how the judge's decision can be seen as a penalty imposed by the court for the people's refusal to act upon a court ruling. This is not going to be the case for some Judge Schmo saying, "I feel like raising property taxes in my district!" But my question is, can the distinction be defined in legal terms reliable enough that it could be safely put into law without fear that the law would be abused?