Legislative functionality isn't the same as country functionality. Are you trying to equate the two?
As for the bolded, who in blazes suggested doing that?
And you're quite correct in your last paragraph. The system indeed works when that happens. The problem is that you've allowed radicals to contaminate the right, with no counterweight in the left. Without that, what, pray tell, do you think happens? Look at how economic rethoric is handled in your country. That's what fucking happens.
And that, my friend, is not something that the SC will eventually solve for you, no matter how many seats you get up there.
How do you plan to tackle that?
I don't know why we'd care about passing bills if the country was non-functioning
and that's what other countries tend to do. There aren't many countries with a presidential system that clearly separates legislative and executive. Most of Europe has members of the legislature serve in that role. If that's not what you're advocating I'd like to know what it is. Because I'm confused on what other parts of the world we could model besides those that get rid of the difference. France is the only other one but, even then they have a more mixed system.
And just countering right radicals with left radicals does nothing, it solves nothing. They moderate right then won't do business with them and your left with nothing. Has the radical right moved the left anywhere? So why would a radical left?
I'm sure your point is the country is moving to the right with the radical right but that doesn't really say a radical left would solve this. First of all I don't think its moved rightward, the only thing its done is promote austerity because they enforce the status quo which is by virtue an austerity. They've enacted non of their policy goals besides cutting spending which again is do to left-leaning policy requiring affirmative consent which radicals won't provide. The left can't opperate the same since their actions require collective consensus and majority. All the radical left would do would be to further solidify the status quo.
The left to achieve their goals needs numerical advantages which the right doesn't. And I'm not sure how having a radical left would solve the economic rhetoric. Because what makes the right radical isn't its rhetoric, it's its willingness to act and let the house burn. Again I don't see how a radical left changes this.
You seem to just think by some mythological balance things will change. That ignores the tools the radical right has because of its goals that would be unusable to the left. That or be having their own ted cruz they'll convince people that they're stupid for voting for the GOP which is silly given ted's own lack of success with the same.
Again, the left needs numerical majorites and power (i.e. the courts, presidency).
