[jMyles]

Not arbitrarily, but with good reason.

It sometimes makes sense to move the goalposts when they no longer work as a mechanism for measuring the metrics of the sport in question.

In this case, the total number of executive orders doesn't speak to the degree to which executive power is used to do things other than execute.

[killjoywashere]

> but with good reason.

No, a hypothesis was asserted, and quickly disproven by data. Without stronger data, the rest of these responses are called "backpedaling", no matter how positive your language might sound.

[jMyles]

Yeah, the naked assertion of "more executive orders" is plainly false by the numbers. But, looking at GP's point more charitably, does that invalidate the spirit of the comment? I think it's clear that it does not. Instead, obviously we must consider the overall force of executive action in creating or changing policy, in order to evaluate whether the contents of this argument are supported by data.

And, FWIW, it's likely that the comment doesn't consider the absurd lengths to which executive power were pushed at various times in the first century of the republic, not only to create policy but also to eviscerate the decisions of the judicial branch (obviously "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it" comes to mind).

This is a rich and complex topics; moving the goalposts away from a discussion of the number of signed executive orders is quite sensible IMO.

[killjoywashere]

but the next step would be to cite a survey of the content of those orders, not make a one-sentence claim.

[jMyles]

Agreed. That is probably beyond the purview of a HN comment. If you are interested in the topic, there are a number of current political science researchers who focus on the powers of the presidency. Nancy Kassop (my thesis professor) might be an interesting author with whom to start - her work is precise yet easy-to-understand.