ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Equal Rights Amendment

Reply
Old 7th November 2019, 02:24 PM   #41
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,251
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But they were entitled to it by the constitution as it was already written at the time.


If you want to make a textual argument that the 14th Amendment, as written, should be interpreted to include protected classes other than race, have at it, but let's not pretend the suffragettes could have gotten that argument through SCOTUS in the early 20th century.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
It is far more clear than the 14th is on this issue.
Fair enough. It would be clearer, but the judiciary is still going to have to do a fair bit of interpretive work so as to allow for sex-segregated restrooms, prisons, sports leagues, etc.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Baby steps.
The last time we successfully passed a Constitutional amendment, it took over 200 years.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 03:15 PM   #42
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,899
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I've always thought the draft laws were blatantly discriminatory against men, and was not impressed at a 1982-ish opinion written by Bill Rehnquist saying it wasn't. At the least I thought women should have to register just like men.
Apart from the fact that it was a consequence of laws preventing women from serving in the armed forces.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 04:22 PM   #43
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,998
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I'm at a bit of a loss here. Is that word not in your vocabulary? I really don't feel like having one of those back-and-forths over something silly.

I'll try to restate my position in other words:

I don't think an argument based on "one sex benefits from policy X more than the other" would hold water. And I wish people wouldn't see every possible benefit as a zero-sum thing. Why oppose a policy that helps women but doesn't exclude men just because you aren't a woman? If someone else gets something nice but I am unaffected: neither harmed nor benefited, why should I oppose that simply because I am not the person benefiting directly? Maybe we can all have something nice eventually if we don't see every thing as zero sum?
But that is just your opinion. It's the opinions of the judges that count and that is often a wild card. They may be persuaded to see things your way or they may not.

If a "sensible" court is one that rules purely on legal grounds then the Supreme Court hardly counts. The aim of both sides of congress is to stack the SC with judges who's opinions coincide with their own.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 04:24 PM   #44
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 14,998
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You can certainly say it is redundant with the 14th amendment but of course interpretations of the 14th have changed over time, and can certainly change back.
The same thing could happen with an ERA. It could be interpreted away in the same way that the right to be secure in your possessions has been.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 04:38 PM   #45
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,049
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Fair point, but do we have any reason to believe the Roberts court is looking to cut back existing jurisprudence on sexual equality? I know they are further right than their predecessors on many issues (e.g. corporate rights) but have we seen any indication that they want to lower the bar from intermediate scrutiny to something more like rational basis when it comes to systematically discriminating based on sex?
I think we may be down to one more liberal justice on the Supreme Court being replaced with another Scalia before all bets are off essentially. Then even Roberts is no longer a potential swing vote. There would only be three liberal justices left so you would need two conservatives to break ranks on any given question.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 04:46 PM   #46
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,251
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
There would only be three liberal justices left so you would need two conservatives to break ranks on any given question.
You're not wrong, but I'm still not seeing a load of social utility in passing an Amendment which would protect against things legislatures and courts are not yet trying to do.

Oh and as to the highlighted bit, it would probably be clarifying to talk about a specific case or controversy, whether hypothetical or historical.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 04:48 PM   #47
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,901
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I think we may be down to one more liberal justice on the Supreme Court being replaced with another Scalia before all bets are off essentially. Then even Roberts is no longer a potential swing vote. There would only be three liberal justices left so you would need two conservatives to break ranks on any given question.
Which might lead, if the Dems get back the Senate, to an attempt to pack the court.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 06:03 PM   #48
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 23,255
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Which might lead, if the Dems get back the Senate, to an attempt to pack the court.
How? Increasing the number of justices? FDR tried that. It did not go well. Impeach a couple on the grounds they were appointed by Trump? Equally unlikely.
A new Dem President will probably be able to nominate a replacement for RBG, but unless they have a solid majority in the Senate Mitchy will just hold to long-established precedent and refuse to bring them up to a vote.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 06:08 PM   #49
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,899
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Impeach a couple on the grounds they were appointed by Trump?
Could Impeach Kavanaugh for lying to the Senate, but that's about it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 06:27 PM   #50
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,409
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Could Impeach Kavanaugh for lying to the Senate, but that's about it.
In order to successfully convict in the Senate, the Dems would need a 2/3rds majority which is highly unlikely.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 08:06 PM   #51
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,877
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Which "legal distinctions between men and women in terms of divorce, property, employment, and other matters" are still enforceable in 2019?

Nope. There is no distinction any more.


Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
The point isn't that such laws exist, it is that such laws are constitutional, especially under strict originalist interpretations of the 14th amendment.

I think you have that backwards. The laws are constitutional, except under a strict originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The men who passed the 14th Amendment would largely have had strokes if they knew women were voting and fighting in the military and getting divorced without fear of impoverishment.


Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Fair point, but do we have any reason to believe the Roberts court is looking to cut back existing jurisprudence on sexual equality?

I think a conservative court would be much harder to convince that women had a right to have their insurance pay for family planning - be it prophylaxis, Plan B, medical abortion, or abortion procedures. They probably wouldn't be convinced that imprisoned women have a right to free sanitary pads or tampons. Those are battles being fought right now that conservative courts have already turned away.


Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
How? Increasing the number of justices? FDR tried that. It did not go well.

On the contrary, it went perfectly. After the threat, the Supreme Court suddenly had a change of heart and upended their previous rulings against unions, workers' rights, the new deal, and monopolies (trusts). It is called the "switch in time that saved nine."

It wasn't a popular proposal among voters, but it only had to sway nine people. And it worked.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 08:50 PM   #52
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,012
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Apart from the fact that it was a consequence of laws preventing women from serving in the armed forces.
I didn't read the whole opinion. I told my dad I would like to read it and he said, "No you wouldn't." His way of saying that if I though SC opinions would be some kind of distillation of principled legal thought, I'd be disappointed, and I believed him.

What I do recall reading went something like this: The draft existed to optimize military readiness and that the mechanics of integrating women into the draft would detract from the prime goal. It was a practical argument. But I read a summary, not the actual reams of verbiage.

What I didn't think fair was that one gender was commanded to register and be subject to a quite real threat of death while the other gender was let entirely off the hook. At least if women had to register, that was one small step to equal protection, even if the armed services could then choose what they saw as the most battle-ready potential soldiers. My point was not really well thought out but IMO neither was Rehnquist's. As someone here has as their sig, justices often cite plausible legal principles to justify their own initial gut reactions. IIRC the justices didn't even do that much.

Last edited by Minoosh; 7th November 2019 at 08:51 PM. Reason: Typos
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 09:04 PM   #53
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,012
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
l thing a conservative court would be much harder to convince that women had a right to have their insurance pay for family planning - be it prophylaxis, Plan B, medical abortion, or abortion procedures. They probably wouldn't be convinced that imprisoned women have a right to free sanitary pads or tampons. Those are battles being fought right now that conservative courts have already turned away.
I only went to jail briefly but at least in that jurisdiction there were scads of free menstrual pads. I think the point was to fend off legal exposure and probably also a realization that getting blood all over the place was a health hazard. This was is in minimum security, don't know about higher levels.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 10:58 PM   #54
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,877
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
What I do recall reading went something like this: The draft existed to optimize military readiness and that the mechanics of integrating women into the draft would detract from the prime goal.

It hardly matters anymore. The military needs high skill professionals now far more than cannon fodder armed with rifles and hope. Drafting a bunch of unwilling and unskilled children wouldn't work very well.

I wouldn't mind a Serve America kind of thing where everybody had to do two years building houses and teaching disabled adults how to plan grocery lists or strengthening levies and such.


Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I only went to jail briefly but at least in that jurisdiction there were scads of free menstrual pads. I think the point was to fend off legal exposure and probably also a realization that getting blood all over the place was a health hazard. This was is in minimum security, don't know about higher levels.

Then you were in a very progressive jurisdiction. Here's an article outlining what happens elsewhere.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 01:00 AM   #55
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,049
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I didn't read the whole opinion. I told my dad I would like to read it and he said, "No you wouldn't." His way of saying that if I though SC opinions would be some kind of distillation of principled legal thought, I'd be disappointed, and I believed him.

What I do recall reading went something like this: The draft existed to optimize military readiness and that the mechanics of integrating women into the draft would detract from the prime goal. It was a practical argument. But I read a summary, not the actual reams of verbiage.

What I didn't think fair was that one gender was commanded to register and be subject to a quite real threat of death while the other gender was let entirely off the hook. At least if women had to register, that was one small step to equal protection, even if the armed services could then choose what they saw as the most battle-ready potential soldiers. My point was not really well thought out but IMO neither was Rehnquist's. As someone here has as their sig, justices often cite plausible legal principles to justify their own initial gut reactions. IIRC the justices didn't even do that much.
OK, this made me curious, so I think I found the case in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg

Quote:
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.) 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.
That's just the summary part of course. Follow the link for more. Full decision here.

ETA:
Interestingly though, while Rhenquist's reasoning seemed to be valid at the time, given that women were excluded from combat roles in the military, it may no longer apply:
Quote:
Ruling
In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles. Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft therefore, there is no violation of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the decision of the district court.
The highlighted basis for the reasoning is no longer strictly true.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 8th November 2019 at 01:05 AM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 01:11 AM   #56
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,049
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I wouldn't mind a Serve America kind of thing where everybody had to do two years building houses and teaching disabled adults how to plan grocery lists or strengthening levies and such.
I'm against that sort of thing on principle. Those are great things to do of course, for those inclined to do them, but no "peacetime conscription" please, for whatever purpose.

(And as far as wartime conscription goes, I'm basically against that too, unless it's absolutely essential, meaning our homeland is under attack. If we are truly attacked though, you'll probably have plenty of volunteers. But not for another foreign war of choice like Vietnam.)
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 8th November 2019 at 01:18 AM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 05:54 AM   #57
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,825
Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes, and government assistance schemes shouldn't revolve around that ONE lady who was a professional scam artist in the 1970s who managed to game the system.

The main body of the thing is what's important, there will always be outliers. If you attempt to handle every conceivable situation no matter how obscure or unlikely you will never get the main work done.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:15 AM   #58
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,253
"This is gonna be the greatest war you've ever seen! It's gonna be HUGE! And in order to have the most fantastic victory in the history of war, we are gonna have to have the most bigly army EVER! The only way to do this is to bring back the wonderful draft. People are gonna love it."
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:22 AM   #59
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,251
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I wouldn't mind a Serve America kind of thing where everybody had to do two years building houses and teaching disabled adults how to plan grocery lists or strengthening levies and such.
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I'm against that sort of thing on principle. Those are great things to do of course, for those inclined to do them, but no "peacetime conscription" please, for whatever purpose.
Don't we already have a law about involuntary servitude?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:41 AM   #60
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,878
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It could have far more reaching consequences than that. It could outlaw "affirmative action" programs and outlaw provisions by employers such as maternity leave or child care facilities (on the grounds that women are more likely to benefit from them).

And that is just in the work place. The lawyers would have a field day on this one.
That is a good argument for originalism
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:43 AM   #61
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,878
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes, and government assistance schemes shouldn't revolve around that ONE lady who was a professional scam artist in the 1970s who managed to game the system.

The main body of the thing is what's important, there will always be outliers. If you attempt to handle every conceivable situation no matter how obscure or unlikely you will never get the main work done.
Because you making a law to last many lifetimes and affect millions. The probability of outliers occuring is high.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:01 AM   #62
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,914
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why do people always focus on extremes and rare situations? We haven't had a draft in my lifetime. The military hates drafts. It very unlikely we'll have one, so why must the theoretical draft of women play a prominent role in the ERA? Just like how trans rights for ordinary people shouldn't hinge on the arcane rules necessary for Olympic athletes,
I don't have a good answer for the draft question, but the Olympic question actually goes the other way around. We're not trying to figure out trans rights based on arcane Olympic rules. Rather, the Olympics is trying to modify its rules to conform to the growing demand for "trans rights for ordinary people". It would be a lot easier if the Olympics were allowed t say that their athletes aren't ordinary, and should be exempt from the ordinary rules. Easier, except that trans activists would then push for the cancellation of the Olympics as being unfairly discriminatory towards trans athletes.

And maybe that has clues for the answer to the military question? It might be easier for the military to say that soldiers are not ordinary people, and thus the military should be exempt from the ordinary rules. But the constant push from society has been in the opposite direction.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:23 AM   #63
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,825
I guess since I'm only in my forties and wasn't alive for Vietnam I just don't see a "constant push" over the draft which hasn't been done since then.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:44 AM   #64
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,914
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I guess since I'm only in my forties and wasn't alive for Vietnam I just don't see a "constant push" over the draft which hasn't been done since then.
Yep. And in extremis, if the nation were actually facing an existential threat that required all warm bodies on the front lines, we'd figure out some way around the gendered draft. Probably a strict scrutiny exception, with either a fast-tracked supreme court review or (more likely) all lawsuits about it deferred until after the crisis.

But this is less about the literal draft, than about true reciprocity and gender equality before the law. There is a draft on the books. It is gendered. Gender equality activists have been pushing hard for expansion of women's roles in the military. Sooner or later, this must include the draft. The question isn't "why should women be included in the draft?" It's, "why do gender equality activists shy away from gender equality in the draft, instead of embracing it?"

Abolishing the draft would cut the gordian knot, but would not actually eliminate the underlying conundrum. Since this conundrum is going to cause inconsistencies and injustices across the entire spectrum of gender equality causes, I'm content to keep the draft around for now, as a clear example we can discuss as a template for other areas of gender equality policy.

There are, in my opinion, two kinds of gender equality activists worth listening to: Those who agree that a draft should be gender-neutral; and those that can give a coherent explanation for why women should be entitled to serve in combat roles but should not be included in a draft. Thus, the draft issue acts as a kind of policy debate shibboleth, even if an actual draft is unlikely in this day and age.

Last edited by theprestige; 8th November 2019 at 08:52 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 04:09 PM   #65
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,251
To my great surprise, there is actual legislative movement on this one:

https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/s...96920773177344
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:20 AM   #66
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,055
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I've always thought the draft laws were blatantly discriminatory against men, and was not impressed at a 1982-ish opinion written by Bill Rehnquist saying it wasn't. At the least I thought women should have to register just like men.
Something weird likely happened as that quote is not in that linked message and I didn't say that.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:24 AM   #67
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,055
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post


If you want to make a textual argument that the 14th Amendment, as written, should be interpreted to include protected classes other than race, have at it, but let's not pretend the suffragettes could have gotten that argument through SCOTUS in the early 20th century.
My point is that constitutional interpretations change and I would rather have it in writing than depend on winning the culture wars to keep women having rights.

Quote:
Fair enough. It would be clearer, but the judiciary is still going to have to do a fair bit of interpretive work so as to allow for sex-segregated restrooms, prisons, sports leagues, etc.
I don't care about preserving sex segregated restrooms and as private organizations sports leagues are not covered by the constitution, any more than having a catholic sports league is banned by the first amendment.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:42 PM   #68
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,251
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
My point is that constitutional interpretations change and I would rather have it in writing than depend on winning the culture wars to keep women having rights.
We would have to win culture war battles in 38 states in order to get it in writing, in the way that you want.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
I don't care about preserving sex segregated restrooms and as private organizations sports leagues are not covered by the constitution...
You are forgetting there are far more student athletes in our state schools than there are in professional private leagues. As of now, federal law governing sex equality has a huge impact on these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_...erican_schools
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.