Are there too many "checks and balances" in the US political system?

[TDAS04]

Not nearly enough checks on the executive and judicial branches, and way too many on the legislative branch

Mostly this.

[TDAS04]

Where do people get the idea that the poor, poor, poor widdle legislative branch is so oppressed?

It's more difficult for Congress to act coherently than it is for the President or the judiciary.  Congress itself is divided in to two separate chambers, and the Senate requires more than a majority to act due to the filibuster.

The President is able to be decisive, because not only is he one person, he can bypass Congress often.  Not that that's always bad, since emergencies may require swift action.

As for the courts, SCOTUS can invalidate laws with a simple majority.

I support checks and balances, but maybe it should be easier for Congress to do things.

[TDAS04]

Congress is way too paralyzed to do anything.  Not only is it divided into two chambers.  Not only can the President veto legislation.  But majorities in both houses, even with presidential support, are often not enough to do anything, due to the filibusters in the Senate.

I do believe in checks and balances, as I believe that any power should be limited, but the US system goes too far when it comes to the structure of the Legislative Branch.  Laws are still sometimes passed, but if a bad law manages to get through in an exceptional instance, than it will be a long time before the government manages to repeal it, if the vast majority support repeal.