The power is split across branches, not political parties. And I think you're forgetting that Senators are elected in by the people.
I see a common irrational theme of "let's change the rules because they didn't work out in my favor this time". I don't understand the logic behind this.
Senators originally (prior to 1914) were not directly elected by their constituents... the founders set up the Senate to be the more "responsible" "Upper House"and were set to represent the interests of each state and appointed by each state's democratically elected Governor. The intention of senators having longer terms (6 years vs 2 years for House members) in addition to being appointed by each state's Governor and state legislature was so Senators would not be as directly affected by electoral politics and would be forced to actually work together. I think the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was in retrospect a pretty horrible decision that has not added much democratic value to our system.
Well look at how governors have been handling the pandemic. Most of them seem completely one sided in terms of their response, unwilling to compromise and stretching the limits of their power. There isn't a "let's see how it's working and adapt based on new information" mindset, it's a "my way or the highway" mindset. For example, I live in PA and our governor's orders were recently found to be unconstitutional[1].
If anything, governors should have less power, not more. Decisions should be made on a smaller scale, states are too big for a one-size-fits-all model. And I certainly wouldn't want governors hand picking our senators.
Unsurprising, given the judge who found the orders unconstitutional was a Trump appointee. The past three and a half years Republicans have spent packing the courts seriously hurts the credibility of the legislative branch.
As an aside, Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sources, and citing it does not help your argument.
Details on why you don't like the judge and which media outlet I referenced (i honestly just googled the story and grabbed the first one I saw) digresses from my point. And fyi once you digress from the main topic and shift to sub-aspects (without actually addressing the main point), it usually means you're arguing in bad faith, or your cognitive dissonance is kicking in. It's a mechanism used by closed-minded and stubborn people...Food for thought.
I'm not digressing from your point, I'm directly rebutting it. You claimed that your governor is abusing his power, offering as a supporting argument a ruling that his orders are unconstitutional by an ostensibly neutral third party. I'm attacking your supporting argument by calling the neutrality of that third party into question.
My own opinion is that the orders are constitutional.
I see a common irrational theme of "let's change the rules because they didn't work out in my favor this time". I don't understand the logic behind this.