The logic used to determine the prior lawsuit, as I understand it, was opposite to your line of thought. Perhaps the thought has to be modified, but if a draft is required, then the support to combat ratio changes from the volunteer force.
I understand that the logic used in the lawsuit was different. I follow it, but I think that it is backwards. That doesn’t help, as once a precedent is established, it becomes hard to overturn.
The logic used is, to my way of thinking, backwards. Equal protection means that the law doesn’t subject different distinguishable groups of persons to different requirements.
Volunteering is one thing, but if I didn’t want to go (say in a war caused by Dem fecklessness) I’d feel more protected if I was treated the same as the other class exempted from the draft.