Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  SCOTUS declines to hear women in the draft case.

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


next newest topic | next oldest topic
SCOTUS declines to hear women in the draft case. by blackrams
Started on: 06-07-2021 11:02 AM
Replies: 3 (98 views)
Last post by: maryjane on 06-07-2021 09:48 PM
blackrams
Member
Posts: 29812
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post06-07-2021 11:02 AM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Supreme Court declines to hear case questioning whether women must also register for the draft
https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...AKNfNw?ocid=msedgntp


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Monday it will not hear an appeal questioning whether the requirement that men – and not women – register for the military draft is constitutional in a case that challenged one of the last remaining sex-based classifications in federal law.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision is for Congress to make – at least for now.

"It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act," Sotomayor wrote in a statement joined by Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. "But at least for now, the court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue."

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally of requiring men – and only men – to register for the draft through the Selective Service System because, the justices reasoned at the time, the purpose of a draft is to build a pool of combat troops.

Back then, that meant men. Not any longer.

The Department of Defense formally lifted the ban on women in combat in 2015. And so the question before the court now is whether a male-only registration requirement violates the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The registration requirement is one of the last sex-based classifications in federal law," wrote attorneys for two men who were required to register and the National Coalition for Men. "It imposes selective burdens on men, reinforces the notion that women are not full and equal citizens, and perpetuates stereotypes about men’s and women’s capabilities."

The National Coalition for Men, a men's rights group, is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The modern registration approach was adopted during World War I, according to court documents. The draft inducted nearly three million men into the military for World War I, over ten million during World War II, 1.5 million for the Korean War and nearly 2 million for Vietnam, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The Selective Service System, a federal agency, told the nation's highest court that reconsidering the male-only draft registration would be "premature." Its attorneys argued that the court's earlier case, Rostker v. Goldberg, "made clear that the court should defer to Congress."

In the frequently asked questions section of the agency's website, the second question is "why aren't women required to register?" The answer, in the agency's words, is that the Military Selective Service Act, enacted in 1948, authorizes only men to sign up.

A federal district court ruled for the male plaintiffs in the case but the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that decision, citing the Supreme Court's earlier precedent in the Rostker case.

Hmm Seems a bit cowardly on SCOTUS's part to me. IMHO, they should make a decision.


------------------
Rams
Intelligent people speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something.
Consider that before telling anyone what's on your mind.

<a href="https://m.maploco.com/visited-states/mine.php?states=AL-AR-AZ-CA-CO-DC-FL-GA-IA-ID-IL-IN-KS-KY-LA-MA-MD-MI-MN-MO-MS-MT-NC-ND-NE-NJ-NM-NV-NY-OH-OK-OR-PA-SC-SD-TN-TX-UT-VA-WA-WI-WV-WY&w=ml"><img src="https://map1.maploco.com/visited-states/ml/AL-AR-AZ-CA-CO-DC-FL-GA-IA-ID-IL-IN-KS-KY-LA-MA-MD-MI-MN-MO-MS-MT-NC-ND-NE-NJ-NM-NV-NY-OH-OK-OR-PA-SC-SD-TN-TX-UT-VA-WA-WI-WV-WY.png" border=0><br>Create Your Own Visited States Map</a>
My wife told me to grow up. I told her to get out of my fort!

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-07-2021).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
maryjane
Member
Posts: 67563
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 442
Rate this member

Report this Post06-07-2021 01:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
MHO, they should make a decision.


They did. They (rightfully in my opinion) denied certiorari and in explanation, stated that it is the job of the legislative and/or executive branches of the govt to first make a decision regarding this issue. Few Americans are in favor of courts legislating from the bench and most are still strongly in favor of separation of powers within the 3 equal branches of govt, and the high court on more than one occasion has indicated that military affairs are pretty far removed from it's 'pay grade'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg
If you read thru the following, you will see how much the judicial branch believes it to be the job of the legislative branch to make the decisions regarding the military.

If you look at many, if not most SCOTUS rulings where the justices found a law unconstitutional, the ruling will instruct congress/executive to change the law.
Since DoD restrictions regarding women serving in combat has changed significantly since the 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg decision, it is perhaps time for congress to take another look at the issue. Once they have, then, the lawsuits will fly and the judicial can let stand or strike down the legislation.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-07-2021).]

IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 29812
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 223
Rate this member

Report this Post06-07-2021 01:26 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:


They did. They (rightfully in my opinion) denied certiorari and in explanation, stated that it is the job of the legislative and/or executive branches of the govt to first make a decision regarding this issue. Few Americans are in favor of courts legislating from the bench and most are still strongly in favor of separation of powers within the 3 equal branches of govt, and the high court on more than one occasion has indicated that military affairs are pretty far removed from it's 'pay grade'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg
If you read thru the following, you will see how much the judicial branch believes it to be the job of the legislative branch to make the decisions regarding the military.

If you look at many, if not most SCOTUS rulings where the justices found a law unconstitutional, the ruling will instruct congress/executive to change the law.
Since DoD restrictions regarding women serving in combat has changed significantly since the 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg decision, it is perhaps time for congress to take another look at the issue. Once they have, then, the lawsuits will fly and the judicial can let stand or strike down the legislation.



Understood but, shouldn't the same rules apply as in equal justice under the law to all issues? It doesn't appear from the article that SCOTUS told Congress to do anything.
SCOTUS has made rulings under the "equal justice" scenario several times. Had they done this, I would have not questioned it.

 
quote
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed.


What stood as the ruling then may not be applicable now. Women are now allowed in combat MOSs by their own lobbing. Seems to me, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Or, do equal rights/opportunities not include equal responsibilities?
Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-07-2021).]

IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 67563
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 442
Rate this member

Report this Post06-07-2021 09:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

It doesn't appear from the article that SCOTUS told Congress to do anything.

Rams



The article's references to Justices Sotamyer, Kavanaugh, and Bryer clearly explains that SCOTUS is following a long standing policy of issuing no ruling while congress is addressing a particular issue, or if there is evidence that congress will in the near term.


Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that because the recommendation is "under active consideration" in the current Congress, any reconsideration of the constitutionality of the male-only registrations requirement would be "premature at this time."
"Congress's attention to the question may soon eliminate any need for the Court to grapple with that constitutional question," Prelogar said.

Surely, you are aware, that there is good congressional bipartisanism support for including women in the selective service and that H.R. 3000 (Inspire to Serve) originally introduced in March 2020, was was re-introduced only about 35 days ago. (May 5 2021)
It includes the following:

 
quote
The Inspire to Serve Act would:

+Promote civic education and public awareness of all forms of service.

+Advance military, national, and public service through a series of improved personnel practices, structures, grant programs, fellowships, demonstration projects, resource allocations, and benefit programs.

+Streamline and modernize outdated processes to make service more accessible.

+Strengthen mobilization for any future public health crisis, natural disaster, or other national emergency.

+Ensure a more inclusive and diverse national security workforce by requiring both men and women to register with the Selective Service System in accordance with the statute.






IP: Logged

next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock