I think with all the other news that has been in the cycle, a good deal of us missed this pretty large ruling that was going to have to come in this day and age. I don't think if it it will ever have to be put into effect, though it is VERY interesting.
WOMEN WILL NOW BE INCLUDED IN THE MILITARY DRAFT IN THE USAI know this had been fought on on both political sides to say that there wasn't full equality in the USA. Conservatives pointed to it as saying that some women only want to reap the rewards of equality, but don't want to reap the consequences. While this was out of their control, I highly doubt anyone truly does want to be drafted for the US military. Progressives pointed to this fact in statating that if there is true equality women and men will be included in the military system (as they are now currently allowed in combat roles, though up to now they weren't included in the draft)
I do think that the reason this didn't hit the news cycle was that it will most likely never be used, I highly DOUBT there will ever be a draft in the United States ever again. Most wars are going to be fought through defense contractors (practically mercenaries, but paid by the US government), crazy tech (drones, robots, etc)
The judge even stated in his ruling such
Yes, to some extent this is symbolic, but it does have some real-world impact," said Marc Angelucci, the lawyer for the men challenging the draft. "Either they need to get rid of the draft registration, or they need to require women to do the same thing that men do.
Government Contractors being used in wars are pretty interesting, and I think it's supported by both sides. As politicians can say that they're bringing US troops home and don't have to talk about the private guys they have their fighting for them. Crazy concept, amazing politically, but it really hides stuff from the American people. Maybe I'll write a little topic on it, don't know if people would be interested.
Thoughts on this though? (Self moderated just to remove sig spam, I would NEVER silence any opposing argument)