That doesn't mean it's good, but suggests directions for solutions.
If the government can only get something done by ramming it through only one branch, maybe there's a reason. It's possible that the action wouldn't hold up to judicial review or that the legislature of elected representatives don't support it.
We can't keep assuming that gridlock is a symptom rather than a feature. Not necessarily directly related to this specific topic, but sometimes governments just have to slowly to do their jobs well.
The executive can move quickly and has some special case exceptions to exercise them more broadly, namely justifiable emergencies, but their powers are supposed to be ephemeral at most owing to their speed.
As for the judiciary, it's not their job to legislate in the first place so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/e...
P.S. law is only permanent when the legislature is unable to enact new law to change or repeal it
No, it doesn't have to.
Remember, the legislature is voted by the electorate, the voting public at large; the people of the city, county, state or country as applicable. If the legislature ends up so divided that passing laws with a supermajority to overrule executive vetos is impractical if not impossible, that suggests the people are divided and cannot come to a consensus on issues to be debated.
Why should the legislature pass laws when the people can't come to an agreement? That's not democratic. If the people can't agree, neither should their representatives agree and it's the duty of the executive to veto such legislative overreach.
Not passing laws is totally acceptable if there aren't any proposed laws that help further the will of the people.
I'd argue that a law based on culture or current knowledge is a bad law precisely because both knowledge and culture are always evolving. Laws that don't come with an expiration date should be timeless, at which point they couldn't be based on today's culture or knowledge.