Van Orden v. Perry was a plurality decision.
SEE:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1800/

That makes things interesting for the following reasons


The meaning of a plurality decision
It does not make law, it does not set precedence.

The Types of Opinions Issued [Emphasis added]
http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/online/class/case08.htm

Professor Byron Warnken and Professor Elizabeth Samuels
University of Baltimore School of Law

The written decision in a case is called the opinion of the court, and

more than one judge has heard the case, the decision is usually written

the court by one of the judges, whose name appears at the beginning of the
opinion. Separate opinions may be concurring or dissenting opinions. A
concurring opinion agrees with the disposition of the case, i.e. whether

affirm or reverse, but differs with the majority's reasoning. If the
opinion of the court is agreed upon and joined in by a majority, it is
called the majority opinion and is binding in future cases. The existence
of one or more separate concurring opinions does not affect whether the
reasoning will be binding in subsequent cases. If there is any common
ground on which a majority agree, then, as to that position, the opinion

a majority opinion and is the law. BUT WHEN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT IS ONLY A PLURALITY OPINION, THE IS, WHEN A MAJORITY
HAS CONCURRED IN THE RESULT ONLY BUT NOT IN THE
REASONING, THEN THE REASONING OF THE PLURALITY IS
NOT BINDING IN FUTURE CASES.

Plurality Opinion When no one opinion has a majority of the Justices
willing to sign on, the Court is fragmented about the legal reasoning and
the outcome of the decision. As such, the different points that Justices
want to make may be divided among different opinions rendered by the
Justices. In essence, the plurality opinion is just the one opinion that
has the most number of Justices that were willing to agree to it. It is
sometimes called the "judgment of the Court."
***********************************************************
plurality opinion: An opinion to which less than a majority agree on
the reasoning of the decision, but to which a majority agree on the

***********************************************************
http://olrs.ohio.gov/asp/pub_Olmstead.asp

A third part of the opinion was agreed to by only four of the nine
justices, known as a "plurality" opinion. Plurality opinions, while not
binding, can provide guidance to lower courts that are deciding similar
cases. This part of the opinion gives a suggestion as to how the four
justices would vote if another case like this one makes its way to the
Court.
*******************************************************************
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=buckeye-elo%40nospam.net+mitchell+v...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C411468

Mitchell v. Helms

Writing for the Plurality: Justice Thomas (joined by Chief Justice
Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy)

Concurring Opinion by: Justice O'Connor (joined by Justice Breyer)

Dissenting Opinions by: Justice Souter (joined by Justice Stevens and
Justice Ginsburg)

Let's see, no majority.
four agreeing for one reason
two agreeing for other reasons
three dissenting.

Because this is was a plurality rather than a majority decision, it has
no authority as legal precedent.

You are invited to check out the following:

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]

For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join

NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/

Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/

***************************************************************

. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .

****************************************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

****************************************************************

:|
:|buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Van Orden v. Perry was a plurality decision.
:|> SEE:
:|> http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1800/
:|>
:|> That makes things interesting for the following reasons
:|>
:|>
:|> The meaning of a plurality decision
:|> It does not make law, it does not set precedence.
:|
:| I always love it when ignoramuses try to "play lawyer".
:|
:| "precedence" is "order of ceremonial or formal preference";
:|i.e. the order of people in a parade or at a graduation ceremony.
:|
:| The word you're looking for is "precedent", "something said
:|or done that may serve as a rule to justify a subsequent act
:|of the same kind".