Hacker News Reader

Comment by Juliate | Hacker News Reader

Hu… no, it is not « normal ». It displays a wild disconnect from the duties of the position (to protect the Constitution, among which).

View on HN

> During his four years as president, Democrat Joe Biden experienced a sustained series of defeats at the U.S. Supreme Court... "I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-bide...

I'm not particularly trying to argue if it's good or bad, just that presidents often stretch the law to apply their agenda. I would tend to side more on the bad side, but it seems necessary due to senate dysfunction.

Doesn't make it more normal. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

I guess it depends on what you mean by normal. The point I am trying to make is it is common for Presidents to do things which are later deemed illegal.

"Normal" is defined by norms (constitution, laws, regulations).

What you're trying to say is "usual" - if it is, indeed, usual for each of your presidents to do so.

My bad for using an ambiguous term but please note that "usual" is the first listed definition for normal in many dictionaries. Using norms to mean rules seems to be more archaic.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com