Talk:Van Orden v. Perry

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

Grammar
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)

Too Much Emphasis on Breyer's Concurrence
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)

Identity of both litigants
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)

The 12 Commandments
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)