“Supreme Court asked to review men-only military draft law”

[archives]

“ WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether it’s sex discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn 18.”

“The registration requirement is one of the few remaining places where federal law treats men and women differently, and women’s groups are among those arguing that allowing it to stand is harmful.”

“Men who do not register can lose eligibility for student loans and civil service jobs, and failing to register is also a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison.”

“The last time the high court considered the Military Selective Service Act, then-Justice William Rehnquist explained that the purpose of registration “was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.” He said that because women could not serve in combat, the law was not unlawful sex discrimination that violated the Constitution.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...0210606-lgy2wvlah5f7pdsjjlm6i7xjvu-story.html

Seems like it should be a no brainer, but it is the Robert’s Court

Personally speaking, as sexist as it sounds, when I was in the service, we used to talk, which is something you always have time to do in the service, if the order came to fix bayonets, who would you want standing next to you in the trenches

 

[Walt]

During WWII, the USA was on the verge of drafting women. In an invasion of Japan, the USA would have had a severe enough shortage of nurses, that they would have had to draft female nurses. Obviously, the invasion of Japan never happened, with Japan surrendering before it could.

If 80 years ago, they were willing to accept a draft of women, to get the soldiers they absolutely needed, why are we against it now?

 

[Grumpy]

.
Since the dims want gender equality for all 57 varieties of gender ... yeah the SCOTUS should rule. But while we're waiting for that to happen, how about hojo, pee and chuckles getting their asses in gear and legislate from where legislation is supposed to happen ???

 

[Truth Detector]

“ WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether it’s sex discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn 18.”

“The registration requirement is one of the few remaining places where federal law treats men and women differently, and women’s groups are among those arguing that allowing it to stand is harmful.”

“Men who do not register can lose eligibility for student loans and civil service jobs, and failing to register is also a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison.”

“The last time the high court considered the Military Selective Service Act, then-Justice William Rehnquist explained that the purpose of registration “was to prepare for a draft of combat troops.” He said that because women could not serve in combat, the law was not unlawful sex discrimination that violated the Constitution.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...0210606-lgy2wvlah5f7pdsjjlm6i7xjvu-story.html

Seems like it should be a no brainer, but it is the Robert’s Court

Personally speaking, as sexist as it sounds, when I was in the service, we used to talk, which is something you always have time to do in the service, if the order came to fix bayonets, who would you want standing next to you in the trenches

Only low IQ dimwits on the left think women should be in combat. BUT, Marxists were okay with it so the left is okay with it.

 

[Truth Detector]

During WWII, the USA was on the verge of drafting women. In an invasion of Japan, the USA would have had a severe enough shortage of nurses, that they would have had to draft female nurses. Obviously, the invasion of Japan never happened, with Japan surrendering before it could.

If 80 years ago, they were willing to accept a draft of women, to get the soldiers they absolutely needed, why are we against it now?

Do you believe that women should be in combat?

 

[Grumpy]

Only low IQ dimwits on the left think women should be in combat. BUT, Marxists were okay with it so the left is okay with it.

Apparently you have never served.

Not EVERYONE is in combat

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Only low IQ dimwits on the left think women should be in combat. BUT, Marxists were okay with it so the left is okay with it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Never served in the military , too low grade

 

[Grokmaster]

THE IDIOT-O-CRATS TREAT THE MILITARY LIKE IT'S A COLLEGE INTRAMURAL SOCIAL CLUB....BRAINLESS, EMOTION-BASED IDIOCY...

 

[Stone]

Hell yeah,....draft those bitches up. You want equality,....you got it. Just no combat. The Army needs cooks and typists too. This means MORE men in the Combat ranks which is a good thing. As an added bonus,.....more on post tail to chase too.

 

[Walt]

Do you believe that women should be in combat?

I don't believe anyone should be in combat, but the reality is women are in combat. Now the question is how to deal with that.

The main complaint that Afghan and Iraqi soldiers allied to us had with us is our treatment of women at checkpoints. They really did not like that we have men searching women. It made them so angry that they sometimes turned on us. If we had at least one woman soldier at the checkpoint, that entire complaint went away.

Local women often opened up to women soldiers about what is actually happening. This is one of the greatest lines of intelligence the modern army has discovered. They would not do so with men.

So as long as there are women in combat, we should have our own women in combat to work things out. If the Middle East depopulates itself of women, then women soldiers begin to make less sense... But do you really think that will happen?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Only low IQ dimwits on the left think women should be in combat. BUT, Marxists were okay with it so the left is okay with it.

lets face reality.....most non liberal women are better suited to be in combat than a liberal 'man'

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't believe anyone should be in combat,

So when a nation like Nazi Germany invades our allies and tries to take over Europe, we should passively sit back and pretend it will have no impact on us? That's rather stupid and naive don't you think?

...but the reality is women are in combat. Now the question is how to deal with that.

That wasn't my question dingbat; I asked if YOU thought women should be in combat? Why is it hard for leftist to asnwer the easiest of questions? Dishonesty? Stupidity?

 

[Truth Detector]

Apparently you have never served.

Not EVERYONE is in combat

Do YOU believe that women should be in combat? Simple enough question.

I never served but lived as an Army brat for 20 years. You think one needs to have served to answer that question? Why?

 

[Truth Detector]

Never served in the military , too low grade

You sad, mentally derranged, Low IQ, lying, race hustling asshole; you should kill yourself. No one would notice. No one would care.

guAno
noun
gua·no | \ ˈgwä-(ˌ)nō
: a fertilizer containing the accumulated excrement of seabirds or bats broadly : excrement especially of seabirds or bats

 

[Truth Detector]

THE IDIOT-O-CRATS TREAT THE MILITARY LIKE IT'S A COLLEGE INTRAMURAL SOCIAL CLUB....BRAINLESS, EMOTION-BASED IDIOCY...

 

[Truth Detector]

lets face reality.....most non liberal women are better suited to be in combat than a liberal 'man'

 

[Walt]

So when a nation like Nazi Germany invades our allies and tries to take over Europe, we should passively sit back and pretend it will have no impact on us? That's rather stupid and naive don't you think?

I do not believe that should happen. It might happen, and in that case, we should fight them with all our forces. You want to hold back some of our forces, because you believe women should not be in combat. No one should be in combat, but that is not how the world works.

The reality of the world we live in is that women are in combat, as are men. Especially in low intensity conflicts, interacting with those women in combat is very important. We need women soldiers to do that effectively. That is the difference between victory and defeat. So would you rather be defeated or have American women soldiers in combat?

 

[Walt]

So when a nation like Nazi Germany invades our allies and tries to take over Europe, we should passively sit back and pretend it will have no impact on us? That's rather stupid and naive don't you think?

I do not believe that should happen. It might happen, and in that case, we should fight them with all our forces. You want to hold back some of our forces, because you believe women should not be in combat. No one should be in combat, but that is not how the world works.

The reality of the world we live in is that women are in combat, as are men. Especially in low intensity conflicts, interacting with those women in combat is very important. We need women soldiers to do that effectively. That is the difference between victory and defeat. So would you rather be defeated or have American women soldiers in combat?

 

[Grumpy]

Do YOU believe that women should be in combat? Simple enough question.

I never served but lived as an Army brat for 20 years. You think one needs to have served to answer that question? Why?

YES ... my service in VN fighting some of the women soldiers there taught me that ... but then an Army brat living in the safety of the installation would NEVER learn that

 

[cancel2 2022]

You sad, mentally derranged, Low IQ, lying, race hustling asshole; you should kill yourself. No one would notice. No one would care.

guAno
noun
gua·no | \ ˈgwä-(ˌ)nō
: a fertilizer containing the accumulated excrement of seabirds or bats broadly : excrement especially of seabirds or bats

The only place Guano ever served was in the mess dishing out soul food.