Hard disagree. First, I'd say our system is more the exception that the rule. For example, most parliamentary systems don't take the "gridlock" approach, i.e. where you say "it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation."

Instead, they basically give the side that controls parliament the ability to pass legislation, and if they fuck it up, they can get thrown out and another party has their turn - this is essentially exactly what is happening in the UK with the Conservatives getting kicked out of power.

The problem with this "eternal gridlock" is that, since Congress can't pass anything, basically the executive branch and the Supreme Court take over legislative roles, which I'd argue is worse. I.e. the executive branch makes a ton of executive orders, which if challenged get decided by the Supreme Court, basically leaving Congress out of it nearly entirely because that legislative body is so feckless.

By objective results, parliamentary systems haven't necessarily produced better outcomes. And there's no need for the federal government to assume so much authority anyway; the states can take care of most issues on their own.

> . See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised.

Let's see how long that lasts now. Overturning Chevron was a step to that very end. It puts the Department of Health & Human Services on the chopping block.

Repealing and overturning are two completely different things done by two completely different branches of government.

The overturning of chevron now allows the federal courts to prevent the HHS and CMS from doing their jobs which can prevent the Affordable Care Act from being carried out effectively. Once it's no longer functioning the republicans will have a much easier time overturning it without massive backlash from the American public who overwhelmingly support it (most importantly without pissing off the independent vote).