From page 76 of Frederick Schauer’s Thinking Like a Lawyer:
What there is a reason to do is different from what should be done, all things considered, just as what there is a right to do is different from what the right-holder actually gets to do, all things considered.
Is this subject correct? If so, would someone please explain and gloss it?
I can’t pinpoint why, but it sounds wrong. I guess its meaning is “What should be done due to a reason. . . .”
Supplementary: Thanks to the answer below, I now apprehend the meaning of my sentence, but I still find the construction confusing. Would you please explain, in more detail, why this is 'essentially not (very) different from these examples'?