Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion [Poll] Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case that could have overturned the male-only military draft

Please tick all the statements you agree with.

  • Conscription is not a violation of individual rights but should be gender-neutral.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rostker's rationale is no longer applicable but the Supreme Court was right to defer to Congress.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
PPEcel

PPEcel

cope and seethe
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
29,095
Background

In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 ruling that the selective service system, the U.S.' male-only draft requirement, did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Their reasoning was straightforward: the purpose of the draft is to allow the U.S. military to fill combat roles. Since femoids are expressly excluded from combat roles, there is no military need to draft femoids, and it is therefore not discriminatory against men to require only men to sign up for selective service.

From 2013 to 2015, the Obama administration gradually and later entirely lifted restrictions that barred femoids from serving in combat roles in the U.S. military.

In light of this development, MRAs filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the male-only draft requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the restrictions on femoids serving in combat no longer applied. The National Coalition for Men (NCFM) argued "Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more."

In 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the NCFM and ruled that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA)'s male-only draft requirement was unconstitutional. The U.S. government appealed and the ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, invoking stare decisis. Assisted by the ACLU, the NCFM then filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court developments

The National Coalition for Men was supported by various interest groups. Interestingly, the feminazis at the National Organization for Women filed an amici brief supporting the granting of certiorari, writing that "The MSSA’s exclusion labels women as second-class citizens who have little to offer the nation and who must be protected by men."

On June 7th, 2021, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case, thereby upholding the Fifth Circuit's holding. Sotomayor, joined by Breyer and Kavanaugh, acknowledged that "The role of women in the military has changed dramatically since [Rostker]," but wrote "the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue."

You can read the full statement here.

Discussion

Rather than start with a rant of my own, I've decided to try something new and start off with an open-ended poll.
 
What's up with the suprem court rejecting to hear cases instead of listening and then rejecting?
 
What's up with the suprem court rejecting to hear cases instead of listening and then rejecting?
You act as if those in power give a single fuck about what anyone wants. Pigskins and jews only do what's profitable
 
I agree with a ton of those boxes. yeah it’s a violation of human rights to involuntarily airdrop someone into a war zone and tell them to fight their way out, but it’s also the most practical solution if the military needs soldiers ASAP. The alternative is much worse. On one hand, While foids in the military will invariably make it weaker violence-wise and promote sperm competition among the males, further weakening it, maybe given the current state of the country, it won’t be so bad to have a weak, woke, activist military. Not really a force to be reckoned with, and it would make it that much easier for the right to take the country back by force/resist tyranny. The state’s legitimacy/strength is 1:1 with the degree of violence it is capable of, and that capability comes from the military. So probably weakening the military by filling it with foids is a good thing IF AND ONLY IF there is a violent revolution in our future. Plus there’s the Added bonus of foids getting killed. That always makes me happy. It sounds weird, given the military seems to exist to protect the citizens from other nations, but that military could just as easily be turned against you. And given the authoritarian nature of the leftists currently in control of the state’s guns (and for the foreseeable future, considering they are stealing elections now), and their push for civilian disarmament, which will 100% go down violently, there is a good chance the state’s guns will be turned against civilians/dissidents/huwhite supreme insurrectionists. I’d rather the people wielding those guns be incompetent diversity hire foids than competent men.



I guess the answer to whether or not foids in the military is a good idea depends on what the military is being used for. Foids no doubt make the military weaker, there is no arguing that.. if we are fighting Foreign wars, provided they are not fought on behalf of Israel, then I want a strong military composed of men. If the Military is turned against republicans, then I want it to be composed of all women/trannies/blacks/diversity hires.
 
What's up with the suprem court rejecting to hear cases instead of listening and then rejecting?

SCOTUS has discretionary jurisdiction. Basically, they choose which cases they want to hear (except for original jurisdiction cases outlined in Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution, which are very infrequent). The nine justices don't have the time to hear every case. Several thousand cert petitions are filed each year. The U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari less than 3% of the time, averaging 150 each year.

A petition for certiorari is granted by the Supreme Court should at least four of the nine justices agree to review a case. This is more likely to happen should they feel that it is necessary to set a binding precedent in the interpretation of federal law, to correct an egregious departure from established precedent, to resolve a "circuit split", or to settle an issue of national importance.
 
Male children are drafted instead of women

Draft= male disposability
 
Yes only femoids should be drafred no men tbh
 
I trust men to defend the countries, in fact, they should be forced to, but not weak men.
 
Well, At least being cannon fodder will give me purpose. :feelsbadman:
 
Well, At least being cannon fodder will give me purpose. :feelsbadman:
Sent to the frontline so that chads can keep pounding women, corrupt politicians can keep money flowing into their account to get another luxury jet. Fighting for your country (or any entity other than yourself) is the most cucked thing an incel can ever do.
There are more comfortable ways to die without losing limbs or (possibly) getting tortured by your enemies.
Yes only femoids should be drafred no men tbh
I don't think that solves the problem. Soyciety will make sure foids can sit comfortably in their gaming chair safely while bombing children remotely with drones. Live drone strike + onlyfans would totally become a trend.
 
You act as if those in power give a single fuck about what anyone wants. Pigskins and jews only do what's profitable
And other races don’t do what’s profitable? :feelskek:
 
I wish only foids were forced to enlist
 
Background

In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 ruling that the selective service system, the U.S.' male-only draft requirement, did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Their reasoning was straightforward: the purpose of the draft is to allow the U.S. military to fill combat roles. Since femoids are expressly excluded from combat roles, there is no military need to draft femoids, and it is therefore not discriminatory against men to require only men to sign up for selective service.

From 2013 to 2015, the Obama administration gradually and later entirely lifted restrictions that barred femoids from serving in combat roles in the U.S. military.

In light of this development, MRAs filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the male-only draft requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the restrictions on femoids serving in combat no longer applied. The National Coalition for Men (NCFM) argued "Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more."

In 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the NCFM and ruled that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA)'s male-only draft requirement was unconstitutional. The U.S. government appealed and the ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, invoking stare decisis. Assisted by the ACLU, the NCFM then filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court developments

The National Coalition for Men was supported by various interest groups. Interestingly, the feminazis at the National Organization for Women filed an amici brief supporting the granting of certiorari, writing that "The MSSA’s exclusion labels women as second-class citizens who have little to offer the nation and who must be protected by men."

On June 7th, 2021, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case, thereby upholding the Fifth Circuit's holding. Sotomayor, joined by Breyer and Kavanaugh, acknowledged that "The role of women in the military has changed dramatically since [Rostker]," but wrote "the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue."

You can read the full statement here.

Discussion

Rather than start with a rant of my own, I've decided to try something new and start off with an open-ended poll.
The Biden Administration themselves called on the Supreme Court not to hear this issue

Not unexpected. You knew what you were getting yourself into when you voted for male feminist Biden.




@DonezoTheClown @Uggo Mongo @Caesercel
Fighting for your country (or any entity other than yourself) is the most cucked thing an incel can ever do.
 
Last edited:
If you think that women and men are equal, that women are just as capable as men, and that coed military outfits are just as effective as male only, there is no way you can rationalize this.
Imagine anyone here that voted for Biden and expected the outcome of his admin's weighing into cases like this to be different when his track record of giving himself the benefit of the doubt but not other males when it comes to issue like sexual assault allegations and him actively pandering to women speaks for itself.

Also wasn't @PPEcel talking about how Biden administration wouldn't be able to go after others like incels because of jurisprudence in the laws? If they can pick and choose what cases they'll listen to how can you even say this is true?
 
Last edited:
At best, PPEcel is a reddit leftist. He had Trump derangement syndrome when Trump was basically just reverting to and trying to uphold the status quo from year 2000-2012ish.
It would have been interesting to see how if Trump got elected how this case would have been heard.

Imo it's much more likely to have gone either way or at least the Trump administration not actively trying to tell the court which cases not to hear.

If despite this @PPEcel still supports Biden after this? That's his problem then.
And btw when the Obama administration was opening up combat positions to women, they had a lot of time to seriously question whether the male only draft still had relevance. They didn't. Because the issue wasn't important to them. Only showing that women were just as capable of being soldiers was. OP brings up the Obama administration opening up combat position to women in his poll as if that's supposed to mean anything.

Obama also designated all male citizens killed in drone strikes as military combatants
 
Last edited:
How do people think conscription is institutionalized misandry? Are you fucking retarded? So armies in the 1800’s conscripting men was misandrist?

SMH. I can get where people think it’s a violation of human rights (but who gives a shit about human rights that’s soy) but it’s not misandry.
 
Why do the white people supposedly running this country give so many advantages to blacks than whites and constantly pander to them? Why is hate crime legal, and only applies to white perpetrators and never to blacks usually regardless of the intent? Why did the white people running this country bail out black farmers, and told whites they're shit out of luck because they're not black?
No ethnic can answer this question tbh.
 
The Biden Administration themselves called on the Supreme Court not to hear this issue

Not unexpected. You knew what you were getting yourself into when you voted for male feminist Biden.
I don't see how the Biden administration's position came from "male feminism" as opposed to the executive branch's longstanding natural desire to tell the courts to fuck off. Interesting considering that it was the conservatives at the Eagle Forum who in fact filed an amicus brief to argue in favour of drafting men only, and the liberals at the ACLU who wanted to make selective service gender-neutral.

Also wasn't @PPEcel talking about how Biden administration wouldn't be able to go after others like incels because of jurisprudence in the laws? If they can pick and choose what cases they'll listen to how can you even say this is true?
The Supremes do have discretionary jurisdiction, that doesn't change the fact that the federal judiciary as a whole serves as a check on the government's behaviour.

It would have been interesting to see how if Trump got elected how this case would have been heard.

Imo it's much more likely to have gone either way or at least the Trump administration not actively trying to tell the court which cases not to hear.
The Trump administration took the same position as the Biden administration. Remember, this case has been going on since late 2015, working its way up through two federal district courts, two federal appeals courts, before ending up at SCOTUS. Every step, the Selective Service System argued that the rationale under Rostker was still applicable, that the male-only registration requirement was constitutional, and that the judiciary should defer to Congress and the Executive on military affairs.

And btw when the Obama administration was opening up combat positions to women, they had a lot of time to seriously question whether the male only draft still had relevance. They didn't. Because the issue wasn't important to them. Only showing that women were just as capable of being soldiers was. OP brings up the Obama administration opening up combat position to women in his poll as if that's supposed to mean anything.
I bring up the Obama administration's actions because opening combat positions to femoids (changing the backdrop under which Rostker was decided) made the NCFM's lawsuit possible. And I'll have to disagree with your analysis of the Obama admin's actions -- they did consider whether the male-only draft still had relevance, which is why in the NDAA for FY2017, Congress passed and Obama signed into law a commission that would review the existing system. Said commission in 2019 voted to recommend making the draft gender-neutral. Remember, the executive branch cannot unilaterally order the Selective Service System to order femoids to register -- that would require Congress to amend the MSSA.

How do people think conscription is institutionalized misandry? Are you fucking retarded? So armies in the 1800’s conscripting men was misandrist?

SMH. I can get where people think it’s a violation of human rights (but who gives a shit about human rights that’s soy) but it’s not misandry.
That the law could subject one-half of the population to temporary slavery (because that's what conscription is) and not the other half on the basis of whether they have a penis isn't discriminatory?

Pigskins and jews only do what's profitable
Funny comment considering that Israel does in fact have gender-neutral conscription.
 
I don't see how the Biden administration's position came from "male feminism" as opposed to the executive branch's longstanding natural desire to tell the courts to fuck off. Interesting considering that it was the conservatives at the Eagle Forum who in fact filed an amicus brief to argue in favour of drafting men only, and the liberals at the ACLU who wanted to make selective service gender-neutral.
Normally I'd agree this isn't partisan. But Biden comes from a male feminist background and has before shown he doesn't care much about men's rights when it comes to the chance to pander to women.
The Supremes do have discretionary jurisdiction, that doesn't change the fact that the federal judiciary as a whole serves as a check on the government's behaviour.
That they won't hear this case suggests that they don't think it's important.
The Trump administration took the same position as the Biden administration. Remember, this case has been going on since late 2015, working its way up through two federal district courts, two federal appeals courts, before ending up at SCOTUS. Every step, the Selective Service System argued that the rationale under Rostker was still applicable, that the male-only registration requirement was constitutional, and that the judiciary should defer to Congress and the Executive on military affairs.
Of course the Selective Service System argued against making the male-only registration requirement unconstitutional. They'd probably lose their jobs if it became like that because then selective conscription as a whole would lose its relevance to a lot of the population if it applied to most people of both genders.

The Trump administration didn't do anything to stop the case in its tracks though and unlike Biden, Trump had spoken about the dangers of false accusations against young men (even if it was lip service, it's not something a politician usually does) and rescinded Obama's Dear Colleague Letter rules that had put the presumption of guilt on male college students in sexual allegations against them.

From that track record it is doubtful that the Trump administration (had Trump been re-elected) would have taken as much of a stance in petitioning for this case not to be heard as the Biden administration (which is staffed by a politician that doesn't have a good record on men's rights even compared to other politicians (he helped draft VAWA and spread hysteria about campus sexual assault after all)).
I bring up the Obama administration's actions because opening combat positions to femoids (changing the backdrop under which Rostker was decided) made the NCFM's lawsuit possible. And I'll have to disagree with your analysis of the Obama admin's actions -- they did consider whether the male-only draft still had relevance, which is why in the NDAA for FY2017, Congress passed and Obama signed into law a commission that would review the existing system. Said commission in 2019 voted to recommend making the draft gender-neutral.
I remember the excitement around the commission's vote. Still, compared to other things like healthcare and even NSA spying allegations the Obama administration did not at all seem eager to address this issue. They only considered whether or not the male-only draft still had relevance because of that was an obvious consequence of opening up combat positions to females.
Remember, the executive branch cannot unilaterally order the Selective Service System to order femoids to register -- that would require Congress to amend the MSSA.
But the judicial branch could have set a precedent by ruling that the male only draft is unconstitutional. The Selective Service System has repeatedly been stating it's okay to do what they do because the courts have not found what they do to be unconstitutional. A ruling by the Supreme Court that male only conscription is unconstitutional would have fully stopped any more excuses from them.

Funny comment considering that Israel does in fact have gender-neutral conscription.
Love them or hate them, one of the good things there. Ofc when you live in a more militarily active zone where you are surrounded by potential enemies it's in your interest to have as many citizens as possible conscripted to defend your nation so there's that too.
 
That the law could subject one-half of the population to temporary slavery (because that's what conscription is) and not the other half on the basis of whether they have a penis isn't discriminatory?
Because only one half can fight. Women can’t fight in the service, they can’t fight period. If you are conscripting I’d imagine you’re doing so for a good army, and if women are there and in your army it’s not a good army. Women shouldn’t be conscripted because it goes against the reason for conscription, females in their genes cannot be warriors.
 
Because only one half can fight. Women can’t fight in the service, they can’t fight period. If you are conscripting I’d imagine you’re doing so for a good army, and if women are there and in your army it’s not a good army. Women shouldn’t be conscripted because it goes against the reason for conscription, females in their genes cannot be warriors.

Conscript them into brothels
 
Update: Senate Dems want to attach rider to NDAA that would allow Selective Service to draft femoids
 
Background

In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 ruling that the selective service system, the U.S.' male-only draft requirement, did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Their reasoning was straightforward: the purpose of the draft is to allow the U.S. military to fill combat roles. Since femoids are expressly excluded from combat roles, there is no military need to draft femoids, and it is therefore not discriminatory against men to require only men to sign up for selective service.

From 2013 to 2015, the Obama administration gradually and later entirely lifted restrictions that barred femoids from serving in combat roles in the U.S. military.

In light of this development, MRAs filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the male-only draft requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the restrictions on femoids serving in combat no longer applied. The National Coalition for Men (NCFM) argued "Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more."

In 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the NCFM and ruled that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA)'s male-only draft requirement was unconstitutional. The U.S. government appealed and the ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, invoking stare decisis. Assisted by the ACLU, the NCFM then filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court developments

The National Coalition for Men was supported by various interest groups. Interestingly, the feminazis at the National Organization for Women filed an amici brief supporting the granting of certiorari, writing that "The MSSA’s exclusion labels women as second-class citizens who have little to offer the nation and who must be protected by men."

On June 7th, 2021, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case, thereby upholding the Fifth Circuit's holding. Sotomayor, joined by Breyer and Kavanaugh, acknowledged that "The role of women in the military has changed dramatically since [Rostker]," but wrote "the Court’s longstanding deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue."

You can read the full statement here.

Discussion

Rather than start with a rant of my own, I've decided to try something new and start off with an open-ended poll.
Where’s the option of female only forced conscription?
 
I trust men to defend the countries, in fact, they should be forced to, but not weak men.
Why should men defend societies that don't give anything in return? I rather see this clown world burn :society:
 
I think we should only recruit niggers and women to the army tbh
the rest of us can stay at home feeling comfy :feelsaww:
 
Update:

:feelsautistic::feelsautistic::feelsautistic::feelsLightsaber::feelsLightsaber::feelsLightsaber::feelsLightsaber:
Hell yeah, draft those bitches!!!

I had to sign up for Selective Service at 18 and the govt basically had me by the balls until I turned 26.

Now that I'm 27 (in a few months I'll be 28), this shit is not my problem anymore.

These whores should be sent to the front line and die as cannon fodder against China or North Korea
 
does it really matter about drafts

if any govt. "conscripts" you to fight tell them to go fuck themselves, what are they going to do about it, I doubt in this day and age you would even go to jail,
 
I hope they lower the qualifications for women to pass boot camp and then send them all to the frontlines to use as cannon fodder and exhaust the enemy's ammo supplies.
 
I hope they lower the qualifications for women to pass boot camp and then send them all to the frontlines to use as cannon fodder and exhaust the enemy's ammo supplies.
:feelskek:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top