Search for: "Van Orden v. Perry"
Results 41 - 60
of 105
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2011, 7:15 pm
Doe Paul HorwitzChapter 17The Story of the Ten Commandments Cases: Van Orden v. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 9:36 am
We can see these commitments in action in Van Orden v. [read post]
Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land
21 Feb 2019, 10:37 am
” And in a 2005 case called Van Orden v. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 10:40 am
Supreme Court in 2005 in Van Orden v. [read post]
20 May 2009, 6:43 am
Perry and McCreary County v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 5:48 am
Recently, Scalia says, the Court is "more receptive to the needs of religious practice," citing the 2005 decision, Van Orden v. [read post]
18 May 2014, 7:56 am
In his dissent in the companion case of Van Orden v. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 3:57 am
The number 1 choice, surprisingly, was Van Orden v. [read post]
28 May 2017, 8:30 am
Specifically, citing McCreary County v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 6:41 pm
Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602; and 2. a fact-intensive “Van Orden assessment” of the purpose of the memorial, “the perception of that purpose by viewers, [whether] the monument’s physical setting suggests [something religious], and the monument’s history”, Van Orden v. [read post]
2 Jul 2022, 11:23 pm
(I too have long questioned standing in cases like Van Orden v. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 10:09 am
ACLU of Kentucky (2005), Van Orden v. [read post]
8 Sep 2007, 8:57 pm
The decision in this case bares a striking similarity to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2005 case Van Orden v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 2:30 pm
Kurtzman, Van Orden v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 4:58 am
Of course they're looking for a Ten Commandments monument (Van Orden v. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 8:57 am
Kurtzman into the more historical and context-based analysis that five justices (across four opinions) found appropriate for passive monument challenges over a decade ago in Van Orden v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 10:03 am
After all, Justice Stephen Breyer’s controlling opinion in the 2005 Ten Commandments case, Van Orden v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 2:10 pm
See Van Orden v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 6:03 pm
” In so doing, she echoed a recurring theme in Justice Breyer’s writings about the Religion Clauses’ “basic purposes”: “They seek,” he said in his Van Orden v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 1:55 am
More recently, in Van Orden v Perry [2005], a narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court held that the display of the ten commandments on the grounds of the Texas state capitol did not violate the establishment clause, primarily on the basis of the historical, secular significance of the Ten Commandments in the United States. [read post]
