Nope I don’t read that into it but it would be nice to have an amendment that neuters the activist courts to the fullest extent possible without impinging on other aspects of the Constitution..
DOMA is already law. Thompson’s amendment would prevent the federal judiciary from striking it down with issues of Full Faith and Credit.
He hasn’t come out with anything that would change or repeal DOMA, so your question about polygamy is irrelevant.
His fans are not ‘projecting’ anything. Nearly everything I have written here is from his press releases or appearances. That’s not projection.
The only thing I add is what I consider common knowledge such as the gay couple who married in Massachusetts and then moved to Florida and sued to have their marriage recognized there. They lost but that is what is at issue, that at some time in some court, some judge is going to strike down DOMA using Full Faith arguments. And FDT has mentioned this is the vulnerability, so I expect he has been briefed or he has read on the Florida case.
So when I see FDT addressing similar issues I am of the mind that I am on the same page with him in some common knowledge. That’s not projection, that’s common sense.
When I see him speak or read of his opinions, I can see that he is reading from the same page or someone is briefing him on cuurent legal developments. That’s not projection, that’s merely reasonable inference.
What we have right now is that his team is planning an amendment to deny certain matters of jurisdiction to the federal judiciary. I leave it to he and his team of excellent jurists to hash out the details. But I know the intent, it will be to restrain the federal judiciary from imposing overreaching policy of law on the lives of Americans. At this point that is all we need to know. But I am confident that the amendment will be written to withstand the most extreme challenges the left can throw at it. That’s not projection, that is faith and confidence in a leader who has a track record of sincerity.
Lots of stuff would be nice to do. The question is how.
DOMA is already law. Thompson’s amendment would prevent the federal judiciary from striking it down with issues of Full Faith and Credit.
He hasn’t come out with anything that would change or repeal DOMA, so your question about polygamy is irrelevant.
As President, he couldn't if he wanted to. But Congress can repeal DOMA any time they like. You know, that legislative body controlled by Democrats? They don't need no steekin' judiciary. And without DOMA, what prevents "full faith and credit" from full implementation? It is in the Constitution, after all, and the definition of marriage ain't.
His fans are not ‘projecting’ anything. Nearly everything I have written here is from his press releases or appearances. That’s not projection.
Until he specifies how he plans to achieve his goals in other than vague outlines, you are projecting. You are assuming that what you would like to see implemented is how Fred would do it, because you seem to share a political philosophy. Maybe yes, maybe no. Witness how he went about "getting the corrupt influence of soft money out of politics". Love the philosophy behind that sentiment, but CFR was not exactly how I would desire a policy be crafted.
Four years ago, there were a bunch of people here on FR who were all a gaga about how Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to "Audit the System, from top to bottom" and "Blow up lock boxes" and be strong for business. Turns out he didn't mean what they thought he did. Before that, in 2000, Bush supporters didn't realize that "compassionate conservative" meant huge drug entitlements and "promoting family values" meant facilitating illegal immigration.
That's why, although I like much of the rhetoric Fred uses, I'd like to see more concrete policy examples before I buy it. Rhetoric is easy; we all love Mom and apple pie. Policy is hard, because it shows what you really intend to do. It's there, in black and white, for the public to see if it matches the rhetoric or not.