G: TL;DR: Checks and balances are pushback. Condemning pushback is condemning the system itself.

Longer version, clean and blunt:
You don’t get to praise checks and balances as a principle and then sneer at the mechanism that makes them real. Pushback isn’t dysfunction. It’s the system doing its job. If resistance to power is framed as bad faith, disloyalty, or obstruction, then what’s being asked for isn’t balance—it’s compliance.

In other words:
Checks without friction are decorative.
Balances without opposition are imaginary.
A system that punishes pushback is no longer checking anything.

A crisp way to phrase it if you want something quotable:

You can’t claim to support checks and balances while treating resistance as a moral failure. That’s just authoritarianism with nicer branding.

日本語（にほんご）
押（お）し返（かえ）し は 制度（せいど）の 敵（てき）では ない。制度（せいど） その もの だ。
— Pushback is not the enemy of the system. It is the system.

This isn’t a hot take. It’s basic civics, stripped of euphemism.