Well the way I see it, the Judiciary has "enforcement power" but that can't really be defined at all without an establishment. Plus separation of powers is such a broad concept at this time, perhaps it could work like this...
1833. The Indian Removal Acts pass without problem in Congress, but Justice Marshall rules in favor of the Cherokees in Worcester v. Georgia.
Now, nothing else in the Constitution changes, the President is still Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Congress still holds all the purse strings and the right to make an Army/Navy. The most the Supreme Court could do is force an impeachment trial of the President and shoot down the Indian Removal Acts. Although we could still get a similar "let him enforce it" scenario.
What I think would be the trick is that Congress, probably during Washington's term in the 1790s, would pass the Judicial Enforcement Act which would create a sort of policing force led by the Chief Justice.
While military in organization, it's entirely domestic. They cannot be deployed as militia units to fight in defense of the country or be sent abroad to war (however they can choose to go under the First Amendment. But they wouldn't be fighting with a Judiciary uniform.) Judiciary "enforcers" wouldn't be like police officers either. They can't simply enforce federal and state laws to private citizens.
Instead, we could see a scenario with Georgia militia encroaching on Cherokee lands. Judiciary forces, since Jackson refuses to enforce the Court's decision with Federal soldiers, line the border of Cherokee land facing towards the Atlantic. Judiciary soldiers halt the Georgians in their path and order them to return to their homes. The Georgians refuse, the Judiciary enforces their decision.
Of course, in an instance of absolute abuse of this power (something on a Watergate scale) it'd only be a matter of time before Congress exercises their power to impeach and remove a Chief Justice.