401
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: +
Talk:Plurality opinion (view source)
Revision as of 04:16, November 23, 2008
, 04:16, November 23, 2008no edit summary
:Oh, okay! Thanks for the edit, it's much clearer now. That extra "because" confused me there since it made me think that something was ''missing''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh, okay! Thanks for the edit, it's much clearer now. That extra "because" confused me there since it made me think that something was ''missing''. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 22:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::This one is hard to explain in encyclopedic language. It is when you have 5 out of the nice justices saying that party X should win the case but when not all of them agree with why that is. You will then get a plurality opinion which is the opinion of most of the justices that say party X should win. Hope this helps (and that perhaps someone can think of a better way of putting it into the article) --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::This one is hard to explain in encyclopedic language. It is when you have 5 out of the nice justices saying that party X should win the case but when not all of them agree with why that is. You will then get a plurality opinion which is the opinion of most of the justices that say party X should win. Hope this helps (and that perhaps someone can think of a better way of putting it into the article) --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:49, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::: It may be wrong but I treat entries as intended for high school level and try to be as clear as possible. If that takes longer , or an example thats fine to me. The original text was fine but I hope I kept the meaning while making it easier to read. I tried to break it into two sentances , but couldnt :( cheers [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)