All male draft and draft registration declared unconstitutional in National Coalition for Men, et al v Selective Service System, et al

Politics
1

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5747780-190224-SELECTIVE-SERVICE-DECISION-Full.html

Case is National Coalition for Men, et al v Selective Service System, et al. The Judge was Senior United States District Judge Gray H. Miller of the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.

Link is to the full memorandum decision and order of the court, about 19 pages.

At the moment, this is ONLY a declaratory judgement, not injunctive relief.

The court has simply said that it is unconstitutional and discriminatory to subject only males to registration and potential draft liability.

Because no injunctive relief has yet been granted, the Government need not change anything right now. Male only selective service registration will continue for the moment. However, the court is proceeding to the next step, which will be eventual injunctive relief.

This could happen in two ways. Either the government must end selective service and permanently forgo any possibility of a draft or they must begin registering females and draft them in equal numbers with males, should a draft ever be instituted.

I believe the government will likely shut down Selective Service than take what will likely be a politically unpopular move to register women.

But this is the right decision. Females have been clamoring for equal rights in the military. And with equal rights come equal RESPONSIBILITY. Equal treatment means JUST THAT. A female should have the equal chance of getting that dreaded letter from the government that starts off with “Greetings.” :smile:

1 Like
2

As usual, thank you Safiel. Big news. I’ll be interested to see how this proceeds, procedurally.

3

Congrats ladies…

4

It will be interesting.

I will add one more note real quickly.

While females would have to be DRAFTED in equal numbers, I suspect that the number of females actually INDUCTED would be far lower, as females (for example unwed mothers) would be far more likely to get hardship deferments.

5

Senior Judge Miller indicated that the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rostker v Goldberg no longer applies, because the factual situation has greatly changed since that decision was rendered in 1981. At that time, women were barred from all but administrative support positions in the military. That is obviously no longer the case. Because the factual situation has changed and that decision was based on the facts at that time, it is no longer precedentially binding on lower courts.

6

Good.

I’d rather see it done away altogether but if we are going to continue selective service then women should not be exempted from forced service to the republic just because of gender.

7

I’m the one against the grain. I think congress should immediately pass a “technical correction” bill. In the bill they should substitue “citizen” for the word male/man and they for he/him in the bill.

Femanists want equality, then lets give it to them.

8

A positive result of the feminist equality movement, shattering the idea that men’s purpose is utility to women.

9

I still don’t want them in combat but there’s no reason why they can’t do other things if the situation is dire enough to call up a draft in the first place.

10

Bumping, as another thread was started.

11

I’ll put this quote into this thread as I found its wording interesting:

But U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat “may have justified past discrimination,” men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.

So would and all female army perform equally as well as an all male army? To some extent it could be implied in that statement.

12

I think that they should find the fathers of these kids so that their moms could go out and fight. The idea that the mothers should stay home with the children is a 1960’s way of thinking.

13

This was something else being talked about as well but I hadn’t heard about this ruling:

But U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat “may have justified past discrimination,” men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.

Here is the rest of the article:

I’m curious on how the majority of women will feel about this?

14

Just to let you know that there’s another thread on this. Thanks.

15

Thanks.

16

No it wouldn’t. Not even close.

There are areas where women can excel in combat roles, namely shipboard conflict and aerial warfare. But when it comes to infantry, artillery, and armor they are at a biological disadvantage against men. All three of those combat arm branches require, no demand, the increased physicality of males. Especially infantry, the most physically demanding job in any military.

17

That is an amazing bit of contortionism.

18

Not at all, not in any way.

ALL legal cases stand on TWO factors, the law (or equity as the case may be) and FACTS.

If the facts change, any legal decision predicated on those facts must fall.

The facts have changed, that is beyond dispute. Women are legally admitted to military positions barred to them in 1981.

It is indisputable that the facts have changed, therefore Rostker v Goldberg is no longer precedentially binding.

Of course, it is possible that this case works its way to the Supreme Court and they could ultimately reverse this ruling, establishing a NEW precedent based on the facts as they stand now. But the OLD precedent is out the window, regardless of what happens gong forward.

19

Has zero to do with draft.

20

Actually it does. Rostker v Goldberg was predicated on the fact that women were barred from most aspects of military service by law. Therefore, since they were denied equal treatment by the military, it was justified to exclude them from the draft, not to mention that for the most part, female draftees would have been useless, as there were only a relative handful of positions for females to fill.

Females now have equal treatment by the military and virtually every position in the military is open to females. They now have equal treatment, yet the government still favors them, by excluding them from the draft. They have equal rights in the military now, and with that comes EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY and the equal treatment of MEN by selective service and the draft. It is unfair now to have men solely liable for the draft, when women have equal rights therein. It is time for women to step up and assume the EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY that necessarily comes with EQUAL RIGHTS.