The public pronouncements surrounding this action are pure nonsense. It will be interesting to see if the legal arguments are along the same lines. If so, it will be a hard case to make even given the encouragement and support that they will get from the Justice Department.
Three of the four young women are Reservists. I’d like to hear the legal discussion of exactly what a “career” in the Reserve Components is and why inability to serve in excluded occupational specialties causes great harm to that “career”. As the article points out, women are serving in combat today and not just incidentally. Their mission is different from the mission of all male units, but they are receiving credit for combat experience and they are expected to perform a combat role appropriate to the capabilities of their unit. If they were asked to hump a 90+ pound rucksack up a mountainside at 10,000 feet, most would fail, and would pay a price in the career sweepstakes. The real failure, however, would be on the part of the nation who allowed them to be put in that situation to begin with.
It was once said that you can find no atheists in foxholes. I’d say that still applies to the ACLU.
A “career” in the Reserves may be different than what you think. Many who appear to be on active duty are reservists on active duty, not regular army. RA are guaranteed jobs, reservists on active duty not so much. Then, the ones that meet monthly and for 2 weeks in the summer are subject always to being ordered to active duty. So yeah, it is actually a career.