It isn't a false equivalency. I'm undermining the entire assertion by pointing out the 'over' in 'overreach' is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

By definition, "overreach" must be beyond the point of acceptable action, so if you're going to use that term you need to say why it's overreach.

I think michaelscott, as an outsider, has bought the propaganda the right has pushing for decades, without realizing it's a falsehood.

By recasting it I mean to provide context about why it's a falsehood.

Some nudists think it's overreach for the government to require clothing in public? That's not really a left/right thing.

Is it government overreach to have Daylight Saving Time? That's another one that seems equally pro/anti.

It’s not a false equivalency. The right frequently claims the government over reaches, and then enact their own Christian policies which have a tendency to overreach. Heard of those book bans? That’s conservative Christian overreach into state policy, which takes away freedom.

What’s bad faith is claiming that more social restriction is not a form of overreach.

Edit: pollution is actually a very good example. In my view, polluting my property via air or water pollution is a violation of my property rights, and is therefore unconstitutional. Companies doing so are overreaching. I would like the government to reach out and stop that. Certain Conservatives somehow don’t share this view, and think businesses should have the freedom to pollute, and wish to abolish the EPA. The government would be overstepping, to them.

No, I agree that checks and balances are bipartisan.