Stinchfield’s predecessor, William L. Ransom, evidently had less faith in the "broad good sense and attachment to the great principles of the Constitution" of the American people than Bryce did. After FDR’s legislative triumphs in 1935, he certainly doubted Congress’s will to resist the president. The ABA should “stop quoting from James Bryce or any other Englishman, in favor of the American tradition of the powers and functions of the Courts,” he counseled Stinchfield in a letter surviving in Newton Baker's papers at the Library of Congress. “This counsel is not due to prejudice against things British, but to a realization that the President’s fight is veering toward an advocacy of the parliamentary system (executive and legislative powers merged and made supreme, with no judicial curb), and that the President will claim that liberty and individualism have not been destroyed in England.”
The Court-packing plan died that summer, but the denunciation of “parliamentarism” survived, especially among senators of the president’s party seeking to justify their opposition to FDR's agenda. For example, the majority report on a proposal to reform agencies' procedures explained, “The basic purpose of this administrative law bill is to stem and, if possible, to reverse the drift into parliamentarism which, if it should succeed in any substantial degree in this country, could but result in totalitarianism with complete destruction of the division of governmental power between the Federal and the State Governments and with the entire subordination of both the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government to the executive branch wherein are included the administrative agencies and tribunals of that Government.”
Although Congressional Republicans are big believers in American exceptionalism, I don’t expect them to invoke the anti-parliamentarian tradition until a constitutional crisis forces them to do so. When the time comes, I hope it works.