Should women have to register for Selective Service?

[Czarcasm]

@WillFarnaby

Slavery in the Americas was terrible. It was largely limited to those of African descent. Would the extension of slavery across all ethnic groups have been a move in the right direction?

Slavery is another topic.

[MandaJo]

@UltraVires

1. A Supreme Court decision is binding until that Court says it is not, so it was pretty ballsy for this judge to flout the controlling law like that.

2. Simply because women are now permitted in combat roles, why does that change the fact that males are largely more suitable for combat roles so as to limit a draft to males only? Rehnquist said that the ban on women in combat “fully” justifies the exclusion on women in the draft. It doesn’t follow that it is still not at least partially justified. If not, see #1.

We aren’t talking about limiting the draft. We are talking about limiting registration for selective service. In the event of a draft, who is called up could be determined by whatever needs the country has.

You keep complaining people are ignoring your point, and then you ignore mine. There’s a “fit” argument to be made for who you draft. It’s weak, but it’s there. I don’t see any argument for limiting who is required/allowed to register.

[Velocity]

@UltraVires

The court’s decision is in direct contradiction to binding Supreme Court precedent.

It does not contradict it at all. The Court decision was, “*because *women cannot serve in combat roles, therefore they do not need to be drafted.” If A, then B. Now that A no longer applies, B therefore also no longer applies.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@UltraVires

1. A Supreme Court decision is binding until that Court says it is not, so it was pretty ballsy for this judge to flout the controlling law like that.

Um, what? The judge distinguished the existing precedent on the grounds that the underlying facts have changed. It happens all the time.

[Telemark]

@UltraVires

The court’s decision is in direct contradiction to binding Supreme Court precedent.

How do you think a case could make it to the Supreme Court to change the precedent without a lower court ruling that highlights the changing underlying facts?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Telemark

How do you think a case could make it to the Supreme Court to change the precedent without a lower court ruling that highlights the changing underlying facts?

In theory, the draft challengers could appeal the case all the way to SCOTUS. In practice SCOTUS is unlikely to take up a case that relies on existing precedent.

[UltraVires]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Um, what? The judge distinguished the existing precedent on the grounds that the underlying facts have changed. It happens all the time.

But the facts have not changed. Yes, Congress now allows women to voluntarily serve in combat positions. It does not follow that it has determined that it would be desirable to register women for a potential future draft, as it could rationally conclude (as it has so far) that although some women are fit for these roles, registering women who do not choose a military career would not yield satisfactory results.

For all of the talk about draftees serving in non-combat roles, the Court determined that suitability for combat “fully” justified Congress. The Court took pains to show the Congressional Record that the intent of Congress was to provide combat troops in a future draft.

I invite you to re-read Rostker v. Goldberg: Bernard ROSTKER, Director of Selective Service, Appellant, v. Robert L. GOLDBERG et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The overwhelming majority of the opinion discusses Congress’ power to raise and support armies and gives deference to its judgment of its needs WRT to a draft. The ban on women in combat roles was merely once piece of the puzzle and not the lynchpin of the decision that this court casually tossed aside.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’ve read it, and your interpretation is incorrect. The fact that women were not eligible to serve in combat was the deciding factor.

The District Court stressed that the military need for women was irrelevant to the issue of their registration. As that court put it:

Congress could not constitutionally require registration under the MSSA of only black citizens or only white citizens, or single out any political or religious group simply because those groups contain sufficient persons to fill the needs of the Selective Service System.

509 F.Supp. at 596. This reasoning is beside the point. The reason women are exempt from registration is not because military needs can be met by drafting men. This is not a case of Congress arbitrarily choosing to burden one of two similarly situated groups, such as would be the case with an all-black or all-white, or an all-Catholic or all-Lutheran, or an all-Republican or all-Democratic registration. Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.

Given that Congress has now permitted women to serve in combat, the male-only registration requirement is now an arbitrary burden on one of two similarly situated groups (at least in the absence of substantial evidence of Congress’ consideration of whether the ban on women in combat should lead to modification of the SSA).