Talk:Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] How did they decide which opinion was plurity and which was concurance?
With both the plurity decision & the concuring opinion apprently having an equal number of votes (3); I'm wondering how they determined which was plurity and which was concuring. Jon (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Plurity usually deals more with the particular case at hand where as the concurrent opinion is a more general note but still in support of the plurity decision. Scalia said more than just ruling on this case, it should not only be upheld but SCOTUS (and apellete courts in general) should refrain from involving itself in local election law. His argument is based in that constituionally we are a republic, effectively now a democracy, but regardless we have never been a jurisocracy. --Lemmey talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
