Reference no: EM133302439

Case: Earlier in the semester the assignment on the organization of federal and state courts drew attention to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) E, a case that examined whether, consistent with the First Amendment's prohibition against establishing religion, Texas could place a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State Capitol building. This week's discussion board on decision making returns to the oral argument in the Van Orden case.

Using details from different portions of the oral argument, present your ideas Ibout what you have learned about Supreme Court decision making from the oral argument stage of the process. The session begins with Erwin Chemerinsky arguing on behalf of Van Orden, who is challenging the validity of the Ten Commandments monument. At about the 25:57 mark Greg Abbot presents Texas' position supporting the monument. At about 46:15 the Solicitor General of the United States, Paul Clement, as amicus curie, presents the Bush administrations position on the issue. Toward the end Chemerinsky completes the balance of his time, about 4 minutes. You comments should include points made by Chemerinsky, Abbot and Clement.

In addition to the above, discuss specific questions from the justices that you find interesting. What were the replies given by the lawyers?