Re: Celebrating bipartisanship?
Gridlock is good insofar as...
There are numerous issues with your post, including the reality that some of the worst excesses of government that you seem to complain about came about through razor-thin, single-party votes. The Democrats has a large majority in both the House and Senate in 2010 when the ACA was passed, and moreso, it would have had some kinds of legitimate compromise in it if Republicans had come to the table as invited by President Obama. Instead, it was a bill filled with ideas (many from conservative think-tanks, but that's another story) that were never debated, just stuffed in there.
Supreme Court Justices were nominated on merit, even through the Bush years. I frankly don't care to waste a moment of my time trying to figure out who you find to be radical, and even don't care if we agreed perfectly. They often passed with large majorities, because the Senate took the Advise and Consent clause to mean "provide Advice, then Consent to the President's choice." Other than Bork in the 80s, and Nixon's various attempts to appoint avowed segregationists, Supreme Court nominees outright rejected by the Senate were rare; it was much more common for them to ask to be withdrawn, usually after a skeleton or two were outed.
And term limits fix nothing; they just move the problem down the road, empower the party apparatus even further, and provide outsize influence to outside money because of the need for large sums of cash to advertise when a new face has little name recognition. Guess what the solution is if you don't like an old Senator from Iowa or the philandering Representative from New York? Nothing, unless you want to move there. They don't represent you, period. If their constituents like them enough to keep them around, that's what a representative republic is all about. I don't like a lot of the old Representatives and Senators from a lot of states across party lines, but they aren't my call. I don't live in those districts and states. I can only work in my backyard and keep my nose out of my neighbor's business. And in the end, if you don't like them, dis-empower their party and handlers, not pump those same folks full of steroids by removing the protection of incumbency from a politician who feels safe in their position to reflect their representatives instead of the party boss who put them in place.
And here's a radical idea: Increase the number of Representatives. The number we have now has been fixed since the 1910s, when the country was only a third of today's population (and only 48 states to boot). That also dilutes their individual power and also blunts the influence of cash, because it's easier to connect to 250,000 people than 700,000 or more. And certain media markets would be so expensive it would be prohibitive for anything besides issue ads.