Gender equality or gender differences? The NYT has recently presented opposing viewpoints in competitions not directly involving physical strength. In the world of chess the Times promoted the need for separate champions for men and women, with the alternative being few women ranking high enough to enter major events. In big-wave surfing the Times appeared to support events with men and women competing together. Which side would RGB be?
7
Giving women an equal chance to come home in body bags from unwarranted wars does not exactly represent socioeconomic progress for men or women.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a formidable advocate for gender parity in civilian life, whether it be equal opportunity for women in education, employment, and amateur sports or for men who desire to be nurses or equal access to citizenship for their children.
Ms. Greenhouse: “I’d like to think that it’s an easy case by now, even for the most conservative justices.” The Supreme Court should decide in favor of an equal opportunity draft (men and women).
Rather than look to the courts, we can learn from the example of the Israel Defense Forces, a model for military conscription in a nation of nine million, surrounded by hostiles.
Women in the IDF can serve in any combat role—including airforce pilot—and as part of women majority battalions. Female soldiers, however, are not typically deployed in situations where there is a high risk of actual engagement.
Women will likely assume an increasingly vital role in the US military as it adjusts its mission to respond to the changing needs of the twenty-first century. The US military has lost its way since Vietnam, when it became an undesired foreign presence in many countries. Modernization will be more effective in containing Communism, fundamentalism, and terrorism than soldiers and guns. Women can play an important role in that modernization.
We can thank RBG for this development.
10
Justice Ginsburg does indeed deserve a lot of credit for cases advancing sexual equality and for being a wonderful role model for women. Ditto for the recent case addressing civil forfeiture abuse -- so badly needed.
However, along with her many accolades, one must remember her disastrous vote in Kelo v. New London (2005). In that decision she joined her liberal colleagues and then-justice Kennedy in taking Susette Kelo's home away from her for the private benefit of Pfizer Corporation, thereby destroying the eminent domain protection of the Fifth Amendment. This opened the floodgates for widespread abuse of homeowner rights by cities and states eager to work with well-heeled businesses in their expansions.
The struggle to protect homeowners is now a 50-state problem, and pro-bono organizations such as the Institute for Justice (who defended Kelo) now have an intractable set of cases to manage. One bright spot is that some states have enacted their own limited eminent domain protections, but the damage has been done. What was RBG thinking?
3
Although I instinctively recoil at the image of women soldiers being captured by ISIS or killed en masse exiting landing craft in Normandy, I recognize that there is no principled objection to including women in the draft. Though sometimes a bitter necessity, war is ugly and brutal for everyone and the death of a man is no less tragic than the death of a woman.
1
Why not make this moot? Let the government operate without the same safety net they don't offer most of the American people, eliminate the draft. No one should be compelled to sacrifice their lives based on the words of some politicians. If the leader of the government can make a honest and moral cause for defending the country, Americans will serve.
3
Having come of age in the Vietnam War era, I can fairly comment.
I don't recall resistance by women to being drafted. I just recall resistance to being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. Many men, I included, felt the same way.
Nor do I sense any material resistance to women registering for the draft now -- along with men, of course. I too hope the draft never gets reinstated, but I think it's appropriate to require registration just in case it is. There indeed may be times when it's necessary to call on young men and women to fight -- even in foreign wars -- and so I can't agree with those who say the draft should NEVER be reinstated. Our leaders should do exactly what they do now: look at each war on its own merits, and decide whether we ought to get involved. My only real disagreement lies in the conclusions I'd draw. I'd say "no" far more often than we do. It seems to me that the "default" answer is "yes," and it should be "no." It's NOT sensible to say (as pacifists do) that we should NEVER fight wars "over there," since that would mean we should always wait until enemy troops are massed at our border, ready to stream across. It means simply that we should say "no" unless we have a very good reason to say "yes."
That good reason didn't exist in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria or Yemen. It existed in Afghanistan, though only for a short while and then it ceased to exist and we should have come home.
12
I would not favor a return to the draft but I would favor registration of all men and women to national service with a term of two years which could be served in the military or in working to bring infrastructure to native American reservations or in maintaining our national parks or caring or our children or our seniors or working for the poor...
Let's begin a system of Unselective Service for all.
127
@Douglas McNeill
I totally agree. Every young person should be required to register for, and serve out, a two year term of service to their country. Military service being only one of several service options. No exceptions, objections, or deferences. Offer various alternatives that allows people from all walks of life to have a viable service option. There are so many things young people in this country could learn from being of service to others.
24
@Douglas McNeill
Yes--that Jamesian "moral equivalent of war" might not only provide some much needed services, but it might bring enough young people together in shared goals and tasks to combat our political and geographic polarizations.
15
@TheRealJR60
Thanks.
National service could be a great leveler putting the rich with the poor, the white with the black, the religious with the atheist. Proximity would pari passu increase understanding and yes, even tolerance of others.
High time.
18
Two distinct points here, both correct:
"Times have changed. You now see [tattoos] as often on women as men, on those in the 'upper' echelons of society as on those in the 'lower.'
I don't have a tattoo and have never really understood why anyone would want one."
In the old days, a tattoo was usually interpreted as a sign of intellectual inferiority, even though though some tattoo-wearers were very bright and highly educated. That prejudice probably still exists, though it's even less warranted these days. I know several very bright and highly educated women with tattoos.
As for why anyone would ever want a tattoo, beats me. I wouldn't want to wear the same clothing, or comb my hair in the same way, for the rest of my life when I choose what to wear, or how to comb my hair, when I'm, say, 21, and yet that's effectively what someone decides when he or she gets a tattoo. That doesn't strike me as "freedom" -- quite the opposite, in fact. It amounts to a declaration by the tattoo-wearer that he or she will give up freedom of expression going forward by expressing irrevocably how he or she feels today.
2
An incisive, persuasive and enlightening analysis. Thank you. You bolster one's faith in the bedrock doctrine of rule by.
2
More information is necessary regarding the National Coalition for Men and Gray Miller’s judicial record. That Miller invokes Justice Ginsburg’s rulings to concur with representatives of this ostensibly sexist organization is questionable—if not downright cynical.
Rather than physical prowess, the most important aspect of today’s modern military is intelligence gathering coupled with linguistic and technological ability. Today’s soldiers need to engage and mobilize civilian populations that might be inimical to male soldiers. The ability to interpret satellite feeds quickly and convey enemy locations accurately to command centers, pilots, and artillery is crucial.
As for actual combat, female pilots can neutralize tanks and armored cars as well as their male counterparts. Ditto with female tank commanders. Women can become effective snipers and assassins. Just ask the women of the IDF or the Viet Cong.
This is not political correctness. It is about creating opportunities for those who wish to serve and training them. Some nations mandate compulsory military service and utilize the entire eligible population—for example, Israel. North Korea requires ten years of service for men, high school graduation to age twenty-three for women.
The military aside, a federally mandated service program would not be a bad idea. It would go a long way to alleviating many social issues that plague America today: opioids, obesity, unemployment, violence, and other antisocial behavior.
3
In their zeal to cheer on RBG’s achievements and her effect on society at large, numerous authors and commenters have completely ignored the fact that this decision came as a result of a targeted lawsuit with plaintiffs with contrived standing who were cherry picked by an extremist right wing misogynistic political group.
It's sexist to argue that only men should be required to register for the draft. We can debate till the cows come home about whether men or women are better at wiggling out of collapsed buildings, or engaging in hand-to-hand combat with enemy soldiers, but reality inevitably will rear its ugly head. That "reality" is that pretty much any military job can be performed by a man or by a woman, and there is no good reason why members of only one gender should be drafted. If women generally are more likely to oppose a reinstatement of the draft than men are, so be it -- I'm actually in favor of that.
We shouldn't expect that it will always be sufficient to rely on a volunteer military; we might need some day to reinstate the draft. I hope not, and I doubt it, but that's possible. If and when that ever happens, both men and women (more accurately, boys and girls) should both be subject to that draft.
2
@MyThreeCents - "That "reality" is that pretty much any military job can be performed by a man or by a woman, " with the exception of hand-to-hand combat, in which a man, who will nearly always be stronger, will almost always overpower a woman. Could some women overpower some men? Of course. But on the average, the man is going to win. That must be acknowledged, no matter how "unfair" it it is. They are bigger than we are.
3
When the draft or selective service was “ended” in 1973, it couldn’t have come at a better time for me, personally.
But two of my older brothers elected to join the Air Force and Marine Reserves instead of waiting for the fickle finger of fate to pluck them up to the front line in that lost cause.
In one of my older brother’s yearbook where the seniors had a chance to jot down whatever came to mind, such as Justice B.K. did, one of the students laid down such a memorable quote that still stands out today:
“For Universal Causes Keep The Hendrix Experience Deeply Rooted Around Floating Thoughts...!”
1
This case was brought by the National Coalition for Men, a men's rights organization that has clashed, in the past, with feminists. And feminists are hardly united behind this decision. Some argue that women have had next to no input in past declarations of war. The judge in the case is a Republican and a former police officer. And the whole matter is particularly popular with conservative men. It is not clear how Justice Ginsburg would rule on this matter, and the suggestion that she was responsible for the Court's decision is highly debatable.
There are two issues here: whether conscription is a necessary evil and whether women should be considered the equal of men in order to serve in combat.
Regarding the first, if President Lincoln had not had the legal right to conscript soldiers, slavery could have endured well into the 20th century (which most believed it would in antebellum days) and the country today would be much the worse for it.
As for women fighting equally along side men in combat, it is a delusion. I played four years of college football in which you were celebrated if you injured an opposing player with a clean hit. I have never met a woman who would have thrived in that environment, much less even made the team.
Modern combat means anyone can be killed or wounded in action at any time regardless of how far from the front lines they may be. When a building takes a direct hit from a missile or a truck bomb, only the strong will survive. You cannot remove physicality from war for the simple reason that the goal is always to kill as many of the enemy as possible and there are many ways to do that. Also, there will always be front lines in the traditional sense because war requires armies to seize control of ground and hold it. (See present day Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.)
We risk diluting the superior strength of our fighting men by deluding ourselves into believing that imposing dubious theories of sexual equality is more important than winning wars.
4
Perhaps everyone who has never served in the military before should be required to register for the draft regardless of age as well as sex. Why should the burden of conscription fall only on young adults? For example, anyone who is healthy enough to play golf, run for miles or work out at a gymnasium should be presumed healthy enough to serve in the military, regardless of age, sex or previous condition of bone spurs in the feet.
3
I can't wait to see her retire.
Democrats want term limits for all in Washington.
Democrats want leadership by the young, no matter how dumb, see AOC.
But when it comes to this person, they all love her. Go figure.
2
Hopefully this will be the end of the white male privilege that saw me drafted Into the Vietnam war and then told by Sherwin Williams and the local utility company on my return that I wasn’t eligible to apply for advertised jobs because of my race and gender.
6
Our aristocratic federal judges make a difference about as big as do the royalty of England. What Meghan Markle wears and says seems to some to be of import. To me it's silly.
A federal judge is appointed for life, wears a robe, sits on a throne, has his or her entry or exit from the courtroom cried by a herald who requires everyone to stand as they do so, and can overrule any action by any other official in the land. This in the supposedly democratic United States.
No wonder someone like Ruth Ginsburg, in poor health and a full 85 years of age, clings to her political power and refuses to resign. Why should she? No one can take her power away from her. Even though she should have stepped down a decade ago.
3
@John Smithson Perhaps is selecting a Supreme Court judge were fair, she would have resigned by now (i.e. Merrick Garland). But it's not. She stays, if she can, until a president that actually loves this country is in the oval office. Or at least one that does not want to tear down our democratic institutions, including a free press.
6
Of course the ERA is needed. Just as specific wording was needed to give former slaves and women the right to vote.
3
I'm just hoping her health holds out (at least) until January 21, 2021.
6
I would like to see the draft changed...both genders included...such that only those folks over age 65, and who are in the top 1% of net worth, are eligible. They've had a lot of fun by 65, and have gotten more out of the freedoms our country offers than those of us in the 99%. It's a crime that almost all those killed and maimed in our endless wars are teenagers and early 20-somethings, with their whole lives ahead of them, and now, without the draft, exclusively from the working and middle classes. Just take some Advil if the arthritis...or bone spurs...start acting-up.
2
Let me see if I understand the point being made. Although a fundamental tenet of feminism is to ensure that women have complete control over their lives and further, that they have unlimited choices in living their lives, the author is applauding the possibility of women being conscripts into military service as a feminist victory? This absurd decision did not open any door to women that wasn’t already open. Since 2013 the last of those barriers was removed. Women can now make a career of military service if they so choose. By giving legal standing to the plaintiffs backed by a misogynistic organization, the court made a mockery of women’s rights.
2
@From Where I Sit - Huh. That's funny because when my son had to sign up selective service in order to get any type of financial aid for college, he was wondering why my daughter did not have to do the same. Doesn't seem fair does it. My daughter did not have to compromise her morals and sign up for selective service, but my son did. How is that equal? You may want to actually read some of Justice Ginsburg's rulings. Because that is the point she was making and continues to make.
5
@From Where I Sit
With equal rights come equal responsibilities. Throughout my life I've heard that women don't deserve equal rights because they didn't serve in the military or police...then, as those barriers fell, because 'they couldn't be drafted'. Time's up!
1
@VB
First, military service, if called, is every mans obligation. For women, military service is but one among a plethora of life choices.
Second, not everything in life is evenly split between men and women. Women in civil service cannot be charged higher pension contributions even through actuaries will confirm that on average, they live longer and collect wage based pensions for more years yet young men are charged higher auto insurance premiums due to the actuarial fact that they cost more to insure. A diagnosis of breast cancer is slightly more common in women than a diagnosis of prostate cancer is in men while survival rates for breast cancer are slightly better than they are for prostate cancer. Yet, breast cancer research, education and treatment spending is six to eight times that of the equivalent for men. College admissions and graduation rates are higher for women than for men yet no one is calling for research into the causes or for programs to counter that fact.
Third, women fought long and hard to improve their position, not to see what few imbalances exist be turned against them.
Fourth, if I were 45 years younger, I would be eternally grateful if I were allowed to apply to college. Like my father, enlisting was the only option available because my parents couldn’t afford to send two kids to college.
The elephant in the room in terms of this discussion is: We should have a draft, and whoever is registered needs to face the possibility of active duty. If smarter minds say that both men and women need to register and serve in the draft, then so be it. That would make a draft even more a regulatory device over political influence on when to send the military into harm's way.
The question of whether men and women should face a draft is worthy of discussion. But the more important issue is whether we are going to let politically opportunistic politicians continue to use the military (under a voluntary service circumstance) for political purposes, rather as it was intended - to be used in rare cases when the safety of country depended upon it.
By relying on a totally volunteer military we have given the military over to the political class, to manipulate this aspect of our democracy just as we have sold out to the financial elite to determine the out come elections. Not good.
5
If we ever got to the point where we would need to register women for the draft, that would be the least of our problems. Let's get to that point, though, before we start thinking about sending our girls to war. Women represent the future. Surely there is room in this country to protect them, however stodgy the old "save women and children first" line may be.
@Joseph
Women represent the future, but men do not?
And yes, the US would have to be in big trouble, to start drafting anyone. If it's in that much trouble, women should be required to step up, just as men are.
7
@Karen White "Women represent the future" might be implying, a la Dr. Strangelove, that one can repopulate the country more quickly after a cataclysmic war with a higher ratio of women to men . . . Otherwise yes, I don't see the rationale for protecting women but not men.
2
Sadly, I'd rather we abolished the idea of the Draft. It's not really necessary in the world today.
And if it does become necessary, I think we will all be fighting, women, men, old and young. Because the circumstances will be truly catastrophic.
6
Given the nature of the Supreme Court--a small body that relies on the political apparatus for its lifetime appointments--only a very few legal pioneers end up in the public's eye the way that Justice Ginsburg has. The Court generally has included legal all stars but not necessarily pioneers who made the arguments that shape our understanding of our nation and through their work our relationship to each other and to the Constitution.
The way Ms. Greenhouse talks about the legal foundation that then-attorney Ginsburg laid for sex equality reminds me of Charles Hamilton Houston, another legal luminary who gets too little credit because his life was relatively short. He worked tirelessly to establish the principals to overturn segregation and honed the arguments that led to Brown v. Board. His protege, Justice Thurgood Marshall, is the household name associated with the outcome.
I am grateful for Justice Ginsburg and the inspiration that she offers. I hope that young attorneys recognize that her goal was less to serve on the Supreme Court than to make legal history. She happens to have done both.
8
Having just completed the FAFSA for my soon to be college freshman, I was struck by the inequality of only requiring males to sign up. And for anyone thinking of not registering their son, forget about any funding.
2
I've always thought of pacifism as intellectual laziness:
"I would advise young people to become pacifists."
There ARE wars "over there" in which we ought to engage so that we don't have to "fight them over here." Pacifists deny that there are any such wars, but there are some. Not many, but some.
We need to think about each foreign war. It makes no more sense to conclude, in advance, that NO foreign war is worth fighting than it makes to conclude, in advance, that EVERY foreign war is worth fighting.
Right now, most national US leaders do consider whether it will be worth sacrificing US blood and treasure to participate in a foreign war and, to their credit, they sometimes conclude that it won't be. That is why, for example, our participation in the Yemen war, or the Syria war, is limited and indirect. It would be a mistake to lurch to the other extreme, concluding that we should NEVER get involved in a foreign war.
My objection is NOT that we get involved in foreign wars at all. My objection is simply that we get involved in far too many. There indeed are situations in which it makes sense to fight our enemies "over there" so that we don't ever have to fight them "over here," and I applaud our soldiers -- men and women -- who fight "over there" for us in those wars. But justified "over there" wars are very unusual -- not the "default" choice they seem to be now.
2
Without this one woman's mind and her quiet continuation of her belief in careful yet newer interpretations of the law for women as they enter the workplace and the military. The battle continues for women and their reproductive rights in an arena that is fraught with old ideas from the paleo-men that seem to have such control today. How strange to go to the moon with no questions regarding the expense or the objective yet remain stuck in a period before Mrgaret Sanger. Go R.B.G.
13
I'm not sure who tattoos RBG on their biceps but please there are better tattoos to acquire.
@Gabe
To the point of this story, tattoos and the military used to be de rigueur. Having been brought up as a Navy brat, I certainly saw my fair share of tattoos on sailors with their shirt sleeves up or at a pool, but seldom on officers and never on WAVES. Times have changed. You now see them as often on women as men, on those in the "upper" echelons of society as on those in the "lower."
I don't have a tattoo and have never really understood why anyone would want one. Years ago I had a friend who had a yin-yang symbol tattooed on his calf; he said it was the most painful self-induced experience of his life. Around the same time when multiple people were first openly getting tattooed in what seemed at the time just a trend, another friend predicted that in twenty years someone was going to make a lot of money providing laser removal of all those middle-aged tattoos. Well, that prediction doesn't seem to have happened.
I've often heard the claim that a tattoo defiles the body, thought to be the temple of the Lord. I had a pierced ear when it was a trend for men, so I won't get into a theological argument about tattoos. But some things never seem to change; theological, aesthetic, political disputes, for example.
To the point of your comment, far better a tattoo of R.G.B. (supreme upholder of the American way) on one's bicep than a tattoo of the truly notorious and disgraced Nixon on someone's back. At one time, such an affront would get one stoned.
2
I have always believed that women should also be required to register for the draft, same as men.
What I would like to see is Trump reinstating the draft at least for men, preferably for both men & women, as is only fair. This would be a wise move on his part.
Draft all those working class kids in the Midwest & all those unemployed & uneducated kids in the South, just like we did during the Viet Nam War! Why not? After all, most of the kids serving today have never & will never belong to the 1%. Trump can tell you all about the excuses rich boys use to evade the draft & will enjoy exchanging draft-evasion stories with his pals at Mira Lago. What fun for our Dear Leader!
And I'm sure his patriotic base in the Midwest & deep South will force their sons & daughters to line up promptly for the draft. Look at all the good jobs their guy in the White House will create by reinstating the draft!
7
One of the main plaintiffs in the case was a group known as the National Coalition for Men. It's difficult to imagine what legal injury they could possibly be pursuing with regards to women draftees.
When my daughters are old enough to understand what SCOTUS is and its importance, Justice Ginsberg will be the first justice they'll learn about, followed by Justice O'Connor.
But with all due respect, that chain of precedent to link Judge Miller's decision to Justice Ginsberg is labyrinthine to a near comical degree. Tracing her influence through a Brennan decision that cited another Brennan decision that Ginsberg presented as a young attorney? You could make an far more compelling argument that Justice Brennan (the writer of both Heckler and Frontiero) swayed the district court's line of thinking in this case.
I hope other parents of daughters will join me in educating our kids in the dedication and hard work of R.G.B. as a young female attorney without resorting to this type of far-reaching, butterfly effect style precedent. It's not as though I'm going to teach them to heap accolades on John Marshall for his role in Marbury v. Madison, even though it set up the Court - including the position held by Justice Ginsberg - for the powerful entity is today...
1
Agreed, though I can't imagine the vote would be anything but 9-0:
"It would be interesting if this case reached the Supreme Court."
“Sex-neutral qualifications”. Really? How man men have been deemed unqualified because in a collapsed-building scenario, only the smallest, thinnest soldier could escape through a tiny gap, window, to bring help, to get a link/signal?How many beefed up men who can run a mile fastest, but can’t walk 20 miles have been let go? Why are there shoulder packs but no thigh packs, arm packs/pockets...Can men infiltrate a village where women are covered head to toe in burkas?
From some reading on WWI and II, it was decided on lower levels that the biggest guy would carry the heavy radio, the heavier munitions. Common sense in an army with all sizes of men. That is a better version of neutrality; all skills, all advantages, all abilities considered, made best use of.
I applaud RBG, her building block rulings, and this recent decision for an equal draft. But as with all our rights, they are decisions, rulings, Pentagon allowances. They dribble in over years, on sufferance, as gifts. No. Put our rights in the Constitution. As has been said before, these rights can be lost as easily as....given.
26
I wonder, as more people write about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if we could refrain from calling her "RBG" or worse, "The Notorious RGBG."
She isn't a pet, a toy or some pop culture artifact.
"Justice Ginsburg" suits her just fine. I'm pretty sure she's earned it.
51
Should we also stop using FDR?
2
@Ralphie:
What's wrong if we just left it with her three initials? It still works fine for FDR.
@Ralphie I saw Justice Ginsburg months ago at an event at the Museum of the City of NY. She was carrying a black tote bag emblazoned with her caricature on both sides. I think she enjoys her status as a pop culture icon and I'm sure she doesn't mind being called "RBG".
14
What can I say Linda? I greatly enjoy the New York Times for my peace of mind! That said, so much for the car pool for my wounded warrior... .
1
“the law that Ruth Ginsburg made and is making still.”
The nine unelected, unaccountable members of America’s Supreme Politbureau have been making a mockery of democracy and separation of powers for decades now.
3
This constant worship of Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes me wanna throw up. Ms. Ginsburg's tenure on the supreme court has actually been pretty underwhelming.
She has done little except preach a very intolerant, narrow view of the world....and done next to nothing towards interpretation of actual US Code as it is written in the context of the US Constituion.
She was appointed to the Supreme Court not because of her legal authority....but simply because she is a woman. Period. A figurehead. A token.
Ms. Ginsburg's health is failing, lets be honest. And, yes, just like the rest of us....Ms. Ginsburg can be replaced.
I urge Ms. Ginsburg to retire. NOW. Relax your grip on the levers of power........you got us this far, let someone else, regardless of political stripe, to take it from here.
It simply doesnt matter.
4
@Wherever Hugo
I'm betting she'd love to retire, and will, the day there is a different president to appoint her replacement.
Hang in there, RBG!
2
Agreed:
"Giving women an equal chance to come home in body bags from unwarranted wars does not exactly represent socioeconomic progress for men or women."
The Vietnam War occurred at the apex of the "domino theory's" dominance. The thinking was that the US needed to stop the Commies in Southeast Asia or they'd soon take over Australia and New Zealand and then be knocking on our door. In other words, we needed to "fight them over there" so we wouldn't have to "fight them here." Sound familiar? Fast forward 50 years, and the same rationale supports our "forever wars" in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen.
Back then, the US military wasn't adequately supplied with volunteers, and so young men were drafted and sent over there to fight. Not so today, though our penchant for foreign military adventures seems just as strong (at least in "leaders" such as George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton -- even though GWB dodged the draft in the VW and Hillary was strongly opposed to that war).
I doubt the draft will ever be reinstated, though I welcome women to that battle (none were drafted for the Vietnam War -- only men). I suspect that their eligibility for the draft will make it more likely that it never gets reinstated. One hopes that it also means that the US becomes a lot more selective in its choice of "over there" wars to fight. As matters now stand, pretty much ANY foreign war is one we ought to get involved in.
The "remedy' is very simple:
Pass the "Equal Rights Amendment" and have the females of this country finally be Constitutionally, legally equal,
...and, then when they are legally equal, then we all pick up our protest signs and chant:
"Hey, hey, LBJ -
- how many kids did you kill today?"
There is a reason why there is no more draft.
The draft didn't end because the MIC suddenly realized that, oh, they didn't want any of the "tin and tungsten" ( The reason why Eisenhower said we were there) of Vietnam.
It ended because the draft was letting off the likes of Donald J. Trump with his unproven 'bone-spurs' and killing off the poor, the black and brown, and those who couldn't get draft-exemptions like Dick Cheney.
The draft ended because those nice draftee-farm-boys were rolling a grenade, fragging, into their c.o.'s tent while he slept.
And, it won't be started up again because now those nice farm boys are, as Trump puts it, 400-lb slobs laying on their beds, playing video-games.
Draft women?
There are many women in the military - all volunteer - but they have a Commander-In-Chief who says that military rape is just what happens when men and women get around each other.
When those "volunteer" women are no longer "volunteers" but are forced to be there by a draft, and Trump is chortling when they are raped, then they may find another use for that shiny new weapon they were just handed.
The days of a "draft" are done.
Don't be arming "unequal" women.
Just saying.....
2
@rosa Absolutely, it's time we ended unequal treatment of the sexes by passing an Equal Rights Amendment. The laws that require men to sign up for selective service but not women are clearly discriminatory. Similarly, state laws that preferentially grant sole custody to mothers, such that 90% of divorce cases are decided in their favor, would be struck down by the ERA. Discriminatory insurance policies that burden men with higher premiums than women by virtue of their sex will be prohibited. Hiring committees, in both the public and private sector, will no longer be able to explicitly seek women for certain roles (even if they're underrepresented) because such practices would discriminate against male applicants.
After ERA, college campuses that have women's studies programs would legally be required to have men's studies programs. The dozens of women's colleges in the US such as Mount Holyoke, Wellesley, and Smith will now be legally prohibited from denying male applicants (similarly, the three remaining men's colleges in the US will be prohibited from denying female applicants).
Unequal indeed...
1
@ckilpatrick
Terrific! Then I can count on you to contact your members of the North Carolina state government to be the next state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment!
Your state is one of the states in this country that has not ratified the ERA.
Given the list of what you think the ERA might accomplish then I can expect you to back it fully! Right?
Thanks, C. Kilpatrick!
You get right on that, now.......
3
I’m sure many women are thanking her right now(roll eyes). The fact that women are now considered fit for infantry is not the same as the truth women are not fit for infantry. By all means draft them too. All things considered if the PT are truly equal they will fail. That’s not to say women can’t serve the nation they can and do it’s just don’t be stupid men and women are not equal in all things just like a man can’t have a baby a woman can’t plant the seed. BTW , RBG should of retired four years ago. She did not do any favors by hanging on.
3
@J Clark. I know plenty of men who were drafted - none served in the infantry. All held various technical jobs that a woman could have performed.
It is hard not to find some schadenfreude in feminists being forced into selective service reporting, but a nation that forces its women into combat is not worthy of fighting for.
Notions of chivalry have fallen a long way from those shown on the HMS Birkenhead.
2
@JimF
A nation that cannot rely exclusively on an all-volunteer force would seem, by definition, to be a nation whose citizenry has decided is not worth fighting for. End draft registration for all! It is incompatible with a free society.
2
In a draft, there is no need for any of the costly financial incentives to enlist. During past drafts, pay amounted to a small stipend to cover essentials like soap and detergent since all other costs - housing, food, medical care, transportation and education were taken care of. If enlisteds were paid $25/month instead of $50,000/year (DoD figures for an E-5 with a spouse and two dependents residing off base in any of a dozen high cost regions), the one third of the Pentagon budget that goes to personnel costs could be slashed.
Hard as it may be to imagine Ivanka in fatigues, you go Judge Miller!
1
All living American women over the age of 18 must retroactively register for the draft. No exceotions. (Wink)
Any talk of sex equality is doomed by the fact that such a thing
does not exist ... equality does not even exist within the
same sex groups themselves.. this planking is just another
meaningless political football .. cease the blather and get something done ...
How very nice to read an article that actually informs the reader, and does not try to tell us what to think.
From the paucity of comments, I fear that actual intelligent commentary does not monetize by clicks as well as the usual red meat. But it is appreciated by some of us whose eyes glaze over when assaulted by propaganda.
yippee! now we can all be drafted into useless imperial violence! just when i thought i couldn't love feminism any more...
1
gotta take the good with the bad. want equality? you get it all, not just the parts of equality you want.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to scream and to consider voting Republican. When I was of draft age I weighed 107. I have always been physically uncoordinated and I have never played sports. I’m good at Jeopardy and I speak 5 languages. To draft me, and people like me, for an infantry position would be beyond ludicrous, it would endanger the other members of my unit.
I feel the same way about female firefighters or police officers. If I am in physical danger, I want a man, preferably a big man, to help me out. This is not because I don’t value women. I certainly do. I just have common sense and can tell that a larger, stronger person will be more use in combat, firefighting and police work than someone my size. Why are we no longer allowed to acknowledge this?
1
@Kathleen880 You are living proof that some of the readers/commenters here are still grounded in reality......
@Kathleen880 why are you limiting your comment to women? Doesn’t your reasoning apply equally to small, uncoordinated, multilingual men? Besides, warfare has come a very long way from our grandparents’ time with so much of it now relying less on brawn than on brain. Talking only about infantry misses the point. If the country is in danger, I want a balanced military force that is best positioned to defend us, not a bunch of “big men.”
3
@Kathleen880
Why are you assuming infantry, and soldiers on the ground carrying heavy packs and weapons and marching for miles?
I'm betting that with the right training, you could control a drone as well as most men.
And in 'old-fashioned' combat, firefighting and police work, the people who CAN DO THE WORK are the ones who will be hired/trained to do it. And that is not about gender.
1
Women are simply not the equal of men in combat. A few may be, but the vast majority are not unless you compare them to the weakest men. There is a reason there are no women in the NFL or the NBA. War is an extreme test of physical abilities and women simply do not measure up to men except in rare cases.
In response to the demands of political correctness, women have been shoe-horned into combat roles for which they are not as physically capable as most men. If there is ever another World War and women are made the equal of men in numbers at the front --the logical extension of the philosophy of women are the equal of men in all things-- the nation will suffer for it.
17
@Dougal E
In my view of the world, modern combat is a lot more about brains than brawn.
21
@Dougal E - ...and try updating your concept of modern warfare, which has much less to do with brawn as it does with brains and dexterity. So stop with the sexist generalizations.
15
@gratis Until it isn't. In my view of the world, modern combat means that anybody can be hit at any time-- even in zones that are considered behind the lines. And when they are, the stronger will survive.
3
The patriarchy of this country continues to cherry-pick which equalities they will allow women to have. Pass the equal rights amendment and end the discussion.
1
Ah yes, the clearest confirmation yet of legislation from the bench.
1
“Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions,’ can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment solely because of their membership in a disfavored group.”
Yes indeed. And serious economic injury as well.
1
I'm so happy that Ms. Bader-Ginsberg is finally getting the public acclimation and appreciation she deserves.
She had done more for civil/human rights - especially for women - than any single person.
She has used the power WE THE PEOPLE gave her to make OUR world a better place and she has my thanks beyond words.
3
It would be interesting if this case reached the Supreme Court. The military has no interest in restoring the draft, as it is able to meet its recruiting numbers through advertising, sending recruiters to high schools, etc. While there pros and cons to reinstating the draft, having one would bring to public consciousness the questions of whether warwas the right thing to do. Currently, as we have a "warrior class" - volunteers - the burden of the wars falls only on a few families, and not on the rest of us. Is this the right thing for our nation? The duty to serve in Vietnam - when we had a draft - certainly made most American families sit up and take notice, and ask questions about why we were there.
3
I admire RBG for her litigation skills, but at this point, she is basically a very inflexible liberal holding to untenable positions. By contrast, Justices Kagan, Roberts and others are trying to break free of a perpetually divided court. Which is a better model?
5
This commenter is using outdated "facts."
"I wonder if the draft was mandatory, and required of all people at the age of 18, would ... fathers be excluded along with mothers?"
In the early years, fathers were excluded from the draft, but this exemption ended pretty early. Many fathers were drafted to fight in the Vietnam war. (Mothers were always excluded, of course, since no women at all were ever drafted -- only men.)
Linda Greenhouse writes of R.B.G.'s decision in a case involving citizenship for children born of unwed parents, that "the court’s remedy for the constitutional violation it found was to achieve equality between parents by increasing the burden on mothers rather than reducing it for fathers." Often, in order to achieve equality, increased burdens have been placed on women, mothers in particular, who gestate and bear children. Many whom were once the primary childcare givers now demand better access to child care because mothers are expected to work and raise children. (Those of us who had it drilled into our heads that we shouldn't have children if we couldn't afford them are now told that we are selfish career women who are the cause of unemployment among men.) Physically and biologically, men and women are not the same. I am a feminist and do support full equality for women. I am also a fairly new golfer who took up the game hoping to improve my hand eye coordination so and stay fit as I age. I tried driving from the men's tees because I felt it was more overall "fair." Overall, it wasn't fair to anyone, including me. Size, strength and physiology matter in many situations. My personal life, reproductive system and the left hemisphere were severely damaged because of gender inequality in the way sexual predation victims, as young as 10 or 11, were treated in the USA (amid religious people) in the 1960's. Gender equality should not ignore gender differences.
1
@Debra Merryweather
In what way does this decision ignore gender differences?
@Karen White If you are referring to the citizenship decision, I'd suggest that mothers were and often still are more likely to be together with their children. A father might not be, particularly when the parents aren't married. So, like many 'equality' decisions which weigh more heavily on poorer women, the bar was raised higher for mothers rather than perhaps lowered for qualifying fathers. Just my opinion.
Can we be real for just a minute here?
There is no good argument -- none -- against requiring equal treatment of men and women when it comes to draft registration.
There is no draft at the moment, of course. I doubt very seriously that there ever will be, and I welcome women to the resistance against that. Their eligibility for the draft will make it less likely that it ever gets reinstated.
For the foreseeable future, the US military will be populated, just as it is now, by relatively poor young men and women who volunteer. Just as Congress does now, future Congresses will battle over how much money to allocate to the military, and, just as they do now, national leaders and Presidential candidates will battle over how to use the military. All will argue that the military's purpose is to defend the US, but many will argue -- just as they do now -- that "We need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Their opponents will argue -- just as they do now -- that "fighting them over there" is nothing more than a declaration of "forever war."
I'll usually -- not always, but usually -- be a member of that second group -- the one that believes the George W. Bush argument is nothing more than an excuse for "forever wars." There indeed are situations where it makes more sense to "fight them over there" rather than wait for our enemies to be massed at our border, but those situations are very few and far between. Our government treats them as the norm.
6
It is amusing to see women step up and demand that they be treated equally in eligibility for the draft, now that the draft is no longer a realistic threat. Women were deafeningly silent during the time when the draft was a real possibility and men like me were having our lives disrupted.
5
@wallacerm
A time when feminism was in its early stages, little equality exhibited in American society. Women had difficulty in getting credit cards, mortgages, well-paying jobs, admission to medical and legal schools, and were expected to get married and stay home. As late as 1995, Sears refused to use my name on a credit card I'd applied for, insisting they use my then-husband's instead. Some of these things are still true.
Your point is?
8
@wallacerm
I'm willing to bet that a huge number of the women who want women treated equally when it comes to draft eligibility now (like myself) were not even alive, or at least were children, in the late 60s/early 70s. I regret that it was only men like yourself who were subjected to that then. Times have changed. All young men and women should be eligible for the draft now, AND at the same time, the draft should not (and realistically will not) ever be used agian.
1
@Kate
I know what you mean, and I'm sorry that you experienced such unfairness. I have been a feme sole home owner for 37 years, and I bought my house from another feme sole. Also, I have learned by experience not to accept unfairness quietly but to challenge it and expect better. My daughters began life with a fairer playing field but also know how to stand up for themselves and be gracious at the same time.
1
Another commenter pointed out that the 21-year old son of Congresswoman Louise Conner, who sponsored an early "gender equality" resolution, told her that her resolution meant that women would be drafted for the Vietnam War. She disagreed, but he was correct.
Like many, I hope the draft is never reinstated. But I see no reason whatsoever that only boys should be required to register for it. Draft registration should be gender-neutral.
5
@MyThreeCents I see no reason for the draft at all for either sex. Let in people who are willing, and leave the rest alone. Pay them better so that they will want to stay in for the 20 years it takes for retirement. When they are able to leave at 38 or 39 they will be mature enough to do something else if they choose.
1
It's true that the judge didn't order that women have to register for the draft. But it's equally true that that is the ultimate question. Either both men and women must be required to register (likely) or neither gender may be required to.
It's also true that Congress has repeatedly ducked this issue. Now it can't. I have no idea whether the draft will ever be reinstated, but I can see no reason that it shouldn't apply equally to men and women.
10
I wonder if the draft was mandatory, and required of all people at the age of 18, would the ruling have been the same? Would fathers be excluded along with mothers? Would either?
2
Justice Ginsburg's significance is that of an ideological campaigner, not a judge. Her life's work has been to rewrite the Constitution in favor of the ideology of gender equality. There are two problems with this:
(1) It has required her to run roughshod over precedent, wherever precedent spoke against her ideology. Running roughshod over precedent is itself a dangerous precedent, because it can be followed by reactiionary courts just as well as by liberal courts. We may soon see the results of that.
(2) It required her to elevate the Supreme Court's role from that of a law court into that of a legislature -- even of a supra-legislature. This is not the court that was envisioned in Article III, and it would have shocked Chief Justice Marshall when he created the doctrine of judicial review. This "supra-legislature" concept of the Supreme Court, by divorcing the court from its own Constitutional foundation, has placed the court's legitimacy at risk.
6
@James Ribe. I disagree that RBG did any damage to Article III, and certainly less to politicize the court than the convolutions of 'originalism.' The "ideology" that you disparage is straight from the Preamble of our constitution and our Declaration of Independence. Every American should be proud of those ideals, and every public official should work to uphold them.
9
@adam hammond
"The "ideology" that you disparage is straight from the Preamble of our constitution and our Declaration of Independence."
Really? Please illustrate what you are trying to say. It appears that your interpretation is different from mine.
The Declaration of Independence is just that, independence from rule...Ginsberg wants to use rule to obtain an objective, both societal and functional.
2
@adam Hammond You can't be serious. Surely you're not claiming that the drafters of the Declaration and the Preamble thought for one second that the word "equal" applied to women.
2
To me, there is no question of women being included in the draft and military service of all kinds. There are physiological and anatomical features of women that may limit their participation in certain activities, but these are cases to be regulated on their own merits.
7
In 1971, as the national movement for the ERA was gathering steam, Delaware state senator Louise Conner was the originating sponsor of the Delaware resolution. One evening, as they set the table for dinner, her 21 year old son remarked, "You know, mom, if this passes, it means they will draft women for Vietnam." "No it doesn't." "Yes it does, mom. It says 'Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'"
Louise stopped and thought, then said firmly, "You're right. Well, then, it should mean that. Maybe that will help America understand what the draft really is." This from a woman whose husband was drafted in May of 1942 and left his new bride until the fall of 1945. She told that story many times over the years.
40
I seem to recall from news stories a decade or so ago that newsmen (as they were, to my recollection) decried the violence of woman gang members. Take that together with observations before and since of the ferocity of mothers protecting their children.
Men have no monopoly on being warriors. I actually write this in sadness, not wanting a draft ever needed again, but if ever is, women will serve the country well.
8
@VJBortolot
Interesting analogy 'protecting children'.
How many parents, would leave say their 5 & 7 year old son and daughter in the care of R.B.G. for a week, while on vacation? How about even a weekend? How about if R.B.G. lived by herself, in country, only a few miles from a town, with the nearest neighbor say 1/4 mile away? The prosecution rests.
@Jabin Many, I would think! Great point. She was as good a mother as the best of fathers and she's very close to her grandchildren. Terrific lady.
6
I was pleased to hear about the ruling when I first heard about it on the radio.
I did not know how much of the ruling was attributable to both the legal and judicial career of Justice Ginsburg. Thank you for the walk through history.
4
...I saw the documentary - she's had a storied career, and without a doubt, had a materially positive effect on women's rights over the last five decades. Her decision to stay on the Court was hers, and hers alone. She's always been her own woman, and I wouldn't want her to change now. Good luck Ruth!
13
Judge Miller is a Bush appointee to a Texas federal district court who began his opinion noting the equal protection mess Barack Obama created with his order allowing women to apply for combat arms positions for which they are not qualified, ended it by inviting Congress to determine whether it made any sense for DoD to draft over half then population who are only qualified for about 20% of the positions in the military, then refused to enter an injunction against the selective service.
Hardly RBG...thank heaven.
1
If the objective of registering for the draft is to have a pool available should the national defense require, then all should stand in defense of this country.
13
Ah yes, young women. You can now, for the first time in history, die en masse in a sweltering jungle or frozen steppe thousands of miles from home. [Only you won't because there is no draft and it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which America would re-institute one, which is why this is getting such little play in the press.] And it's all thanks to Ruther Bader Ginsburg who recognizes that there are actually no differences between men and women that the law should recognize. Good job!
8
Women, delicate flowers that they are, must be protected by men. Men must serve and die while women stay home and bake pies. Hopefully some elderly men will be around in case the women needs a tight jar opened.
2
I know that the curtailments of a man’s socio-legal status in our society are minimal to say the least, when compared to women. Nevertheless, I do remember having a strong aversion to being required to register for the draft at age 18. I didn’t like feeling that my life was more expendable, on account of gender.
Thank you to Justice Ginsburg for her historic influence in the result of this case.
18
An excellent decision. As a proud Veteran, this is a huge step forward for Women. And as someone opposed to needless Military adventures, it’s important for us ALL. Imagine the outcry, even from GOP warmongers, if young Women are actually drafted and sent home in Body Bags. The “ optics “ would be horrible, and NOT good for Re-Election prospects.
29
@Phyliss Dalmatian
"Optics" are no longer done in this country either on the wars or the dead.
There have been no "Vietnam optics" since, well, Vietnam.
2
If RBG ever needs help carrying her groceries or across the street, I'm her guy. I also think I could spare a kidney or some liver tissue. All kidding aside, I wish her many more years of sharpness and good health.
39
A national draft would be the greatest deterrent to war.
55
Unfortunately, for me RBG’s greatest legacy will be that she did not retire when Mr. Obama was president. She was part of the liberal elite that believed Hillary Clinton’s coronation was a done deal, and that she would hand the baton to a worthy successor during an HRC presidency. This was irresponsible. We - all Americans - are going to pay for this hubris and lack of selflessness for a long, long time.
7
@Paul H S You forget that President Obama was denied a Supreme Court nominee by the same Congressional players who encouraged the success of President Trump's nominees. Nothing would have changed, and it is obvious that Justice Ginsburg could not, should not, and did not ignore that.
4
@Paul H S, had she done so, McConnell would have prevented a hearing for her replacement, just like he did for Scalia. Putting up with that nonsense is the worst of Obama's legacy.Multiplied by 2? In any case, I am not sure how good the outcome would have been, though when trump "won" one of my early thoughts was yours. A conundrum given the fractious nation we now live in.
1
@Paul H S Please Remember Judge Merrick Garland whose nomination was left unvoted on until Trump became president.
2
Extending draft eligibility to include women and men is a long overdue. There’s no reason women shouldn’t be afforded equal opportunities and treatment with regards to combat duty.
And while men and women have different levels of physical ability that might preclude women from specific combat roles there are numerous other combat positions that women would excel at. One aspect of allowing men and women into combat situations that will be a challenge for the military is insuring equal risk vs. reward. There should be no double standards.
The court decision was great first step.
7
@TheRealJR60 That's a good argument, but it's a policy argument. Under our constitution, it is the job of Congress and the Executive to make policy, not the job of courts.
2
@James Ribe But the court is not making the policy - it's interpreting existing law, as is the Court's role under Article III. A decision that expands a legal/political responsibility to more citizens (as well it should - see below) is not a policy change. It's the logical outcome of a legal argument for equal protection under the law (14th amendment) for men and women alike, which means equal political responsibilities as well as rights. If women have equal rights, and the equal responsibility to report for services like jury duty, it only stands to reason that women have an equal responsibility to report for other service to country when the gov't calls for it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Whatever laws, policies or regulations are created later to deal with that legal recognition... those need to come from Congress, the DoD, etc., if they ever decide to bring back the draft at all, given political realities.
That women aren’t already serving in military positions throughout the entire chain of command is fairly absurd. America’s armed forces may be technologically advanced, but our failure to allow women to serve in the same capacity as men is incredibly myopic.
Any suggestion on the part of our military brass that women just “can’t hack it” is an admission of our own institutional shortcomings. The women of the IDF are not exactly frail creatures who need a man’s protection.
That being said, the very thought of reinstituting the draft should be raising some red flags.
“Where the government’s interest actually lies, though, is far from clear. The military has no appetite for reinstating a draft, which ended in 1973.”
Vietnam was a nightmare, and our nation has never fully recovered. After five presidents each had a chance to end the war, that we never should have taken off France’s hands to begin with, it’s no wonder that people don’t trust the government.
7
Making women subject to the draft would further reduce the likelihood that there ever will be a draft. I also think that warfare has changed significantly since World War II and Vietnam. The likelihood that we will need millions of grunts to assault the enemy is essentially zero. That is not to say the infantry is obsolete. But what we need is a smaller but well-trained military of volunteers - exactly what we have today.
10
Some factual historical background on draft registration in US history might be interesting to some readers: Generally speaking, since September 1918 all American men born after September 11, 1873 have been subject to registration obligations, with the single exception of the group of men born from March 29, 1957 through December 31, 1959.
Before that, there was the 1863-65 Union Civil War draft, which covered men born from 1819 to 1845 (ages 20 through 44).
2
At the risk of being completely flippant, could not the Supreme Court declare the draft as unconstitutional, but add one amendment saying that men and women claiming bone spurs will still be subject to being drafted and, furthermore, those making such a claim would forthwith be sent to the farthest reaches of Arctic ice cap melt? That would be a just memorial for all current justices, I would submit.
14
And remember, this liberal icon was appointed by Bill Clinton, a centrist who liberals absolutely abhor. Winning matters. What I wouldn’t give for the four seats liberals gifted to the GOP over the last 18 years...
19
Women can and should serve in most parts of the military, but it makes no sense to include them in the infantry, where they would make up no more than about 2% of the most physically capable soldiers, and possibly as little as zero depending on how high the bar is set. Even if there are a few women at that level, providing privacy for them will outweigh the benefit of their inclusion. There is a reason why the NBA and NFL have no women.
5
I was drafted in 1966. At the time there was no threat to America that merited the violation of my right to freedom. All that was going on was a doomed adventure in Vietnam.
My father was drafted in 1942, when America was facing an existential threat. Only a situation like that justifies the suspension of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
The way to equalize draft registration is to end it for everyone.
18
@Charlie B
Perhaps in our divisive times, one way to help equalize society would be to draft everyone.
3
@Charlie B
It would certainly help if the draft were only permitted for wars that Congress had declared under the Declare War Clause (last used on June 5, 1942, to declare war on Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria) and when Congress specifically invokes its power to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
3
Yes, have young women register. NO, we should not do away with registration all together. While we have not had a draft in a very long time, there is always the possibility that we may need to identify and call up abled bodied citizens to serve their country at some point in the future.
I'd actually like to see all young people do some sort of service to country (though it need not be military). Service can be maturing for some, help with finding a career/life direction for others, build a sense of commitment, and offer help to the nation in a variety of ways.
63
@Anne-Marie Hislop, this country does not offer all its kids an equal and excellent public education. We do not have available and affordable healthcare for all. Young people working today have no promise that all the FICA money deducted from their paychecks will ever come their way. National service might once have been an honor and a duty, done as a pay forward for the benefits which were accrued to us as Americans; today I think it would be indentured servitude.
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Yes, it can do all those things and, of course, get you killed.
Plenty of guys in my HS class got drafted and sent to Vietnam to play soldier, got their names forever etched on a black wall in DC. Seeing them, all I can think of is the waste of it all. And, their age, just nineteen or so, where their brain development doesn’t allow for consequences or risk.
Not to mention, the people in charge. Would you really want you son or daughter forced into harms way by those Republican clowns at the Cohen hearing? They couldn’t care less about you, your kids, or the country. Draft, never, never, never.
3
@Prant
Exactly correct. Would you risk death, injury, or the trauma of combat on the say-so of Donald Trump? Or for your children? I surely would not.
1
Thanks, as always, for the history & context.
The cultural celebration of RGB, while obviously deserved in many ways, bothers me a bit. It bothered me that she didn't retire while Obama was in office, considering the partisanship that had already deeply infiltrated the Court, and the extremism that had taken over the GOP. Of course we now know that the Senate would not have honored their obligation to vote on her replacement, but we, and she, could not have known that at the time. It was a reminder that even the best of our leaders live in a bit of an ivory tower.
8
@Martin
Perhaps. Perhaps RGB was concerned about her own life, which she can control, versus all you mention, which she cannot.
3
@Martin What makes you think we could not have known at the time that the Senate would not have honored their obligation to vote on her replacement? It was pretty obvious to me - and made very clear by Mitch McConnell - that the Republicans in the Senate had the sole goal of hampering Present Obama’s wishes as much as possible. This became even more obvious when they refused to give Merrick Garland even a hearing, but the agenda was clear long before that.
16
@Martin
The extremism that has taken over the Democratic Party concerns me far more than any changes the GOP has undergone in recent years. I’m not referring to the extreme views of some the newest House members. I welcome new views whether I agree with them, or not. Variety is good. My concerns with extremism among the Democrats stem from the actions of the leaders (Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi). What I witnessed from Feinstein during the Kavanaugh hearings was sickening. I consider what she, and the other Dems on the Judiciary committee did to Kavanaugh to be criminal. If those are the kind of people the Dems rely on to lead then as a party they have far more serious problems than the weak field of presidential candidates currently campaigning. Pathetic.
2
Did you ever wonder why RBG was the closest friend on the Court of Antonin Scalia? Was their bond limited solely to their love of opera? OR was it something more. Did Scalia, a man of penetrating intellect, see in RBG a worthy adversary if not a peer? And I would think she possesses a deft touch which results in her being able to cobble together a majority by finding common ground with justices like John Roberts and of course Anthony Kennedy.
As for the issue in this case, the inclusion of women in the selective service process probably insures that for the next several generations, there will be no draft. Those who favor endless war are far too paternalistic to allow as to the possibility their daughters might be conscripted to fight a war of their own making.
37
@G James
RBG’s legal history is on using legal arguments and remedies to promote greater Constitutional rights and equality for more verses less of our citizens beginning long before her tenure on the SC. Justice Scalia argued only one case before the SC and as justice wrote a number of opinions that limited the ability of racial minorities, victims of police misconduct, and others to claim their constitutional rights. He often used pounding on the table (so-called “originalism “) instead of relying on legality or facts, and had a pattern of viewing matters benefitting conservative goals as broad while those not serving right wing matters as narrow. His Heller opinion overturned 200 years of settled law yet he and his supporters did and continue to decry only liberal judges of judicial activism! I believe the facts, and history, are clear: His legal scholarship does not even begin to touch that of RBG!
5
@G James "Penetrating intellect???" Scalia was somewhat clever at rationalizing opinions that were politically expedient, but his rationalizations were often dishonest and contradictory. "Originalism" has as much integrity as creationism, and Scalia couldn't even stick to it in a coherent way. The fact that it became a truism among the MSM that he was a brilliant thinker reflects their corruption, nothing else.
3
@G James
I was under the impression that they were friends because they both like opera. It may not need any other explanation--some of my friendships seem pretty odd to outsiders.
2
As a staunch conservative, I share the same view of RBG as did Antonin Scalia. Per the opera, ‘We are different, we are one,’ different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve.” Perhaps when we rid ourselves of the calamitous force in our whitehouse, we can return to the mutual respect that a healthy democracy demands.
20
Whenever someone suggests drafting men and women equally, a few familiar rebuttals come up that seem to miss the point.
“We shouldn’t have the selective service at all.” Well, we do, and our constitution has long given Congress the power to draft its citizens. Given that’s the case, we should require both men and women to sign up.
“The last draft we had was a long time ago, and we probably won’t have another one.” Maybe not, but since we still require men to sign up, we should require women to do so as well.
I believe that if the only time you speak out against the draft is when someone suggests adding women to it, you are downplaying the bravery and strength of women. Women are not weak, and they no longer need men to protect them. Moreover, countless young men have in the history of our country been required to fight — if the thought of women being sent off to war makes you sad or squeamish or angry, ask yourself why you were okay with men being sent off. It is high time to give women and men equal duties of citizenship.
106
Well now that the last barrier to women's full participation in serving their country has been lifted, there is no longer any reason not to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
Opponents of the ERA had always claimed that women having been exempt from the draft meant that they were not equal to male citizens in civic duties. Now that argument is at an end.
Now, Congress, pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
179
@Juanita
Specifically, which Constitutional Rights do woman not currently possess that will be rectified by passing a Constitutional Amendment?
5
@TR88
If I infer correctly, you believe there are none. In which case, why not settle the matter once and for all by codifying equal rights for women in an ERA?
40
@TR88
I agree that equal healthcare and equal pay are not Constitutional rights.
1
"The military has no appetite for reinstating a draft, which ended in 1973."
Nor do the wealthy.
77
@Bartolo
True, although somehow their kids always seemed to avoid service anyway.
2
I would advise young people to become pacifists.
50
@Carolyn Egeli
I wanted to say how powerful this was as the first and only comment I saw when I first read the article. I did not want to be the one to muddy its waters.
8