Talk:Lemon v. Kurtzman

message: After Dover judgement,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
has Lemon been re-affirmed? AV, December 22, 2005.
Your question misses the point. District courts are not in the position to "affirm" or "disaffirm" Supreme Court precedent. Kitzmiller is a trial judgment that was not appealed. The Supreme Court itself has not made any explicit decisions regarding Lemon, but in its most recent establishment clause cases, the Court has not used its own three-part test. Off-the-record comments by Chief Justice Roberts and other suggest distate for Lemon. As a result, its status is unclear. 
Given this lack of clarity, district courts deciding challenges under the establishment clause now have a choice of following Lemon, or any of other tests, or some eclectic concatenation thereof. Judge Jones chose to follow Lemon. For other district courts, it is still "choose, and choose at your own risk" as much now as before Kitzmiller. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I Auto-Cited 403 U.S. 602, and received a result of "" which, I think, means that the case has been questioned or criticized by other courts, but not definitively overruled by the Supreme Court.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please keep in mind that "citators" remarks can mean a lot of things. A case that is "perfectly good law" can get a "Q" if a later court merely distinguishes its application, or mentions it. Another case could have a "Q" and have zero weight left at all. Lemon is in that category because it has never been expressly overruled. Lemon is somewhere in between. Its status is very uncertain and that uncertainty is very important right now. Non Curat Lex (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I think that the first few sentences of this section are fairly slanted, and since the "citation needed" tags have been there for at least six months, perhaps it should be changed. 98.177.243.123 (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later developments 

message: Decided to add a new section in case the anonymous user who contributed this decides to contest my edit or simply curious why it was made. He seems reasonably active, though new, and nothing in his history suggests depriving him of an assumption of good faith.
I removed a claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lemon_v._Kurtzman&oldid=540202263) that Chief Justice Burger regretted the broad application of the Lemon Test subsequent to this ruling. While I can certainly believe he might have said such a thing, it is a paraphrased interpretation from a private dinner party supposed to have been attended by Burger and conservative activist Andrew Schafly, recalled 16 years after the event and long after the Chief Justice died. The dead man cannot defend himself, and there are no sources proffered except this one man who is demonstrably hostile to the Lemon Test.
Furthermore, it was technically incorrect to cite Conservapedia itself, which is a freely editable wiki and has an admitted/substantiated bias. If it had valid sources to cite, then those should be cited instead. See the policy WP:Verifiability. Even citing Wikipedia itself is not allowed. The policy allows questionable/self-published sources if the source is commenting on him/herself, as Schafly is doing here for the dinner party he attended, but it's not allowed to "involve claims about third parties". Accordingly, I removed the claim per policy. I tried to salvage some version of the claim by researching it myself, but couldn't find anyone else talking about it. Jaeran (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement of Regret 

message: I noticed that in the article it isn't really clear as to how the judges ruled. For the record perhaps we should amend the article to say 
"Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-0 that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education . . ."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.128.86 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2014‎ (UTC)
: I agree that this is useful/important information. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The information has beed added and the name of the statute was corrected. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I wrote an article on the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon. In doing so I noticed there are probably some high quality sources that would provide scholarly analysis and commentary on this case, they could be used to improve this article. I didn't use them in the article on Alton Lemon as it is about the person, but they popped up in my research (not hard to find). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruling 

message: Is the list of "Factors" subsidiary to the "Entanglement Prong", or parallel to the three prongs, or what?  If they are relevant to two or three prongs, they should be a clearly independent list. —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  factors