Talk:Van Orden v. Perry

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Secular#Secular|secular]] The anchor (#Secular) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Plurality[edit]

The plurality opinion section doesn't seem to give any real information about the opinion. For instance, the reasoning behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.160.216 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

THIS. The plurality opinion states no opinions. TehAnonymous (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

The first point in Breyer's concurrence according to this article is: "The monument's 40-year history on the Texas state grounds indicates that nonreligious aspects of the tablets' message have been predominate." If that's what Breyer actually wrote, than a [sic] needs to be placed at the end of it, since the final word should be "predominant". Tim Ross (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Emphasis on Breyer's Concurrence[edit]

It should be fairly obvious even to the most casual observer that an undue amount of attention in this article is given to Breyer's concurrence. You might as well copy and paste the entire concurrence. Judging from the initial attempt to mislead those not familiar with the law with the statement that "no majority opinion resulted" - which, although technically correct, tends to obscure the more fundamental fact that 5 Justices concurred in the overall judgment (and at any rate, is more accurately stated as "a plurality opinion resulted") - this should come as no surprise. A strong argument could be made that this section is not warranted at all; however, it is undeniable that it should drastically be reduced.65.247.226.108 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of both litigants[edit]

That "Perry" is the governor of the same name seems implicit but needs to be made clear, Perry is a fairly common name. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 Commandments[edit]

To date I've seen no mention that this monument contains 12 commandments. They've split the "covet" commandment into two. The "graven image" commandment is in the bible but does not appear on the original. Here's a link to an image with the original Hebrew briefly translated:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iPHmSpoN8o4/TFpdml1mknI/AAAAAAAAALs/w220-eRnHAQ/s1600/ten-commandments-400%5B1%5D.gif

The monument is a falsification, no matter of whose original rewording. Thus it violates its own "graven image" clause.

Rather GNUish of them. Perhaps adding to the monument "Thou shalt not reword or renumber the Commandments and thereby increase the number of instances of 'Thou Shalt Not'" would make the point clear.

Drmcclainphd (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]