Bridging the cultural divide

[enjolras]

I'm curious on other peoples take.

It's become really obvious to me that there is a BIG cultural rift in America right now. The large urban centers clearly have developed into vastly different cultural areas than the rest of the country and this vote reflected that. It is this cultural divide that is driving the division between Americans today. Whether it's abortion, gay rights, or any other hot button social issues we seem to be divided along these cultural lines.

The question then becomes: How do our leaders begin to bridge this cultural gap? How do you get those of us so divided along very basic value lines together? At this point I'd like to offer up some great plan, but to be honest I got nothing

[Rock Chalk]

Nothing new in cultural gaps enjorlas. This is America and has always had them always as bad as they are now.

The thing is, no matter how divided we get on how our society should proceed forward, we stand united together with one another when we need to.

You also have to ask yourself if bridging this gap is what is wanted? Differences of opinion and different viewpoints lead to new viewpoints that may be improvements over any of the previous ones. It sparks discussion and provokes passion. This is our greatest strength as a nation is our cultural diversity and the huge gaps between them. Politically we are divided into more than just two groups. I would be hard pressed to find another "republican" who agreed with me on all political issues. The lines are not as clear as the media would like them to be. Not so cut and dry. I find myself and many americans do as well, in a position where I agree with about half or so of each party. Most americans are like this. I think the split comes from the fringes who represent a very small minority of the country.

Take LABF and watermock. Both fringe people (really mock isnt but most think he is because they havent chatted with him so I am going with that) and pretty much the only fringe fanatics around (with the occasional Becky and Robb thrown in for good times). Most people are somewhat down the middle. You have Rohirrim and Slug who are fairly far to the left but not on the fringe and then you have patteau and errand who are fairly far to the right but not on the fringe. Then you have pretty much the rest of us somewhere in the middle, 70/30 to 50/50.

It appears split and a growing split between us but it isnt. I get along with democrats and republicans in my life and quite frankly I see no difference between the two when politics is left out of everyday discussion. Our ideals may be increasingly growing apart but then again, that is back to the fringes that are getting farther apart, not the vast majority of americans.

JMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oddly enough, given another term, I believe Smirk will have an opportunity to fulfill his promise to be a "uniter--not a divider."

He will most certainly continue to unite more and more people of all walks of life and all political persuasions--against him.

In fact, it might very well be that our only hope is some sort of civil war between the moderates and the neo-cons in the republican party culminating in a bipartisan effort to impeach the monkey king.

As for the alleged cultural divide in America, part of it is real and a much larger part is manufactured by the right-wing and its media echo chamber/virtual reality machine, IMO.

[shakenbake]

Obviously the country sent a message to the "large urban area's". Maybe you need to start to look at thier point of view instead of trying to make them embrace yours.

[watermock]

I am not even a conservative. I just can't stand idiots. Now LABF wants a civil war. Someone should put him out of his misery.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by AlecRaenos

Take LABF and watermock. Both fringe people...

You're still just as clueless and misinformed as ever.

I'm a Clinton Democrat.

Clinton, in case you weren't aware of it, moved the Democratic party about as far to the center as the party would move.

Because the right-wing media propagandists who inform your thinking have been demonizing Clinton and laboring to associate him with everything horrible that reich-wingers associate with the word "liberal"--your perceptions are not really much more than Pavlovian responses.

Watercock, on the other hand, is a fringe nutroll. (See his "all Muslims are satan worshippers" remark, if you need an example. And, yes, the guy really believes this sh*t.)

[watermock]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Oddly enough, given another term, I believe Smirk will have an opportunity to fulfill his promise to be a "uniter--not a divider."

First off, you don't say that about our President you dimwit.

He will most certainly continue to unite more and more people of all walks of life and all political persuasions--against him.

Total assertion. Evidently a 51 percent majority didn't agree did they! Of course you predicted a Kerry Landslide didn't you dimwit.

In fact, it might very well be that our only hope is some sort of civil war between the moderates and the neo-cons in the republican party culminating in a bipartisan effort to impeach the monkey king.

Your calling for a coup. That's treason you dimwit.

As for the alleged cultural divide in America, part of it is real and a much larger part is manufactured by the right-wing and its media echo chamber/virtual reality machine, IMO.

Nothing is manufactured you dimwit. It's because of idiots like you.

[watermock]

I have torn you apart again and again.

Who was right there dimwit? Your crying like it's Florida. It was a decisive win that was conceeded before midnight.

Now Soros is going into a Monastary. I am laughing my ass off. And Fat Ass Dimwit certainly helped the election.

Your being laughed at LABF. Go cry to your shaving cream. I am going to miss this guy. What do you think happened dimwit? How about exactly what I said would.

[enjolras]

Obviously the country sent a message to the "large urban area's". Maybe you need to start to look at thier point of view instead of trying to make them embrace yours.

Curiously.. what things are those culturally urban making you embrace exactly?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Curiously.. what things are those culturally urban making you embrace exactly?

I live in a very rual state , and some of the things I see People do and say here , just leave me shaking my head in amazment , there is a deep rift , most of it is People out here fear change , take Denver for example , biggest city in the rocky Mountian region , so there is a spot light on Denver from Billings down to Walsenburg , we see the negitive , Crime , drugs , Homosexuality , and just a bunch of sin , Now you slap a progressive or Liberal label on that and people will hate liberalism and think these things are what Democrats stand for ..... Tolerence is a bad thing ,another case in point , Casper is a small town , but some group from Wisconsin , decided 2 years ago that city of Casper shouldnt have a statue of the 10 comandments in city park , now I didnt have a stance on this at all , realy could care less , but those folks from wisconsin did ....... That didnt settle well with the natives here , and then some of the republicans leaders slapped the Liberals want to outlaw your religion , take away your bibles , and that is that ....it will take years to undo the damage that group in Wisconsin did , and what the republican leaders around here did .....

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You're still just as clueless and misinformed as ever.

I'm a Clinton Democrat.

Clinton, in case you weren't aware of it, moved the Democratic party about as far to the center as the party would move.

Because the right-wing media propagandists who inform your thinking have been demonizing Clinton and laboring to associate him with everything horrible that reich-wingers associate with the word "liberal"--your perceptions are not really much more than Pavlovian responses.

Watercock, on the other hand, is a fringe nutroll. (See his "all Muslims are satan worshippers" remark, if you need an example. And, yes, the guy really believes this sh*t.)

Now I do not have a personal conflict with you LABF, but to say that you are a centrist is a little hard to believe. Almost every post from you exudes some kind of hate. You post inflammatory caricatures of all kinds of republicans and always make derogatory statements about them. On the other hand, you never seem to have a bad thing to say about the democrats. You also seem unwilling to believe that republicans could be elected without using subversive tactics, but seem think that the democrats could never do such a thing. These positions are not those that are consistent with a moderate position from either side.

Please understand that I am not condemning you personally. I only believe that you misstate your position when you claim you are a centrist. I also would like it to be known that having some extreme views is not such a bad thing. I think that it is good to have a set of strong core values, which you are not willing to capitulate on a moments notice. That does not mean that you cannot be civil to those who disagree with you however. So take it for what it is worth, but my idea of your position would be that of Jib-Jabs "left wing nut job."

[watermock]

It's going to be a Kerry Landslide.

[DrFate]

Originally Posted by enjolras

I'm curious on other peoples take.

It's become really obvious to me that there is a BIG cultural rift in America right now. The large urban centers clearly have developed into vastly different cultural areas than the rest of the country and this vote reflected that. It is this cultural divide that is driving the division between Americans today. Whether it's abortion, gay rights, or any other hot button social issues we seem to be divided along these cultural lines.

The question then becomes: How do our leaders begin to bridge this cultural gap? How do you get those of us so divided along very basic value lines together? At this point I'd like to offer up some great plan, but to be honest I got nothing

A good post. I don't think this is anything new (the foundings of this nation had a lot of division between urban and rural). Personally I don't see the gap being divided. My biggest problem with current politics is lack of moderates, and lack of intelligent discussion between the 2 sides. Lots of name calling, lots of insulting. The situation is very polarized now - you are typically on one side or the other on any issues, and you really have no room to move. Most people vote for the candidate that is closest to their views. As you said earlier, Enrolas - you didn't feel you had a clear choice. You are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (or moderate, I'm not trying to label you). Neither party embodies your beliefs.

I am pretty conservative on both, and neither party really embodies mine.

[Old Dude]

Because the Red States & Blue States were so similar to what we saw last time - and because increasing numbers of voters on one side were almost perfectly balanced out by an equal increase on the other, I think that the "rift" is a little more pronounced than usual.

But I have been around awhile, and the one thing that's certain is that nothing is ever certain.

In 1964, LBJ won one of the biggest presidential landslides in American history. Four years later, he couldn't even get the nomination of his own party.

In 1972, Richard Nixon won a gigantic landslide over George McGovern. Four years later, he had already resigned in disgrace, and a close contest ensued between Carter & Ford.

Most elections are not decided by the far right or the far left, or the south or the north. They are decided by the big, swirling mass of people in the middle, many of whom don't give a thought to politics until a few weeks before the election. And they are a fickle lot.

The religious right is taking a certain amount of credit for Bush's win in this election, and there is no doubt that they were a big factor. But that same group could easily become a political liability four years from now. It's happened before. I guarantee it will happen again.

Republicans can feel good today, but they should keep a few things in mind. Iraq is a mess, and someone is going to have the dirty job of cleaning it up. It's not going to be pretty. The deficit is reaching almost shocking proportions. The party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility is going to have to do something about that. The tax cuts did not stimulate the economy as much as anyone hoped, and there's not that much more to cut. Bush may have to raise taxes to make ends meet. I seem to recall another member of the Bush family having to do exactly that.

Social Security is a mess. Health care is a mess. We have an aging population - and one that's living longer - and as the Baby Boomers get grayer, there is going to be some serious shiat flying.

And it's an historical fact that most presidential administrations, regardless of the party, lose a lot of their energy and luster in those cases where they have won a second term. I don't purport to understand the reason for that. Probably has something to do with a loss of energy, the spectre of certain promises unkept, expectations unrealized, and the great fickle mass just getting tired of the same old faces. Maybe bitterness and renewed energy from the losing camp plays a big role. But, for whatever reason, it's almost never as good on the second date..

Worldwide, the U.S. expended a lot of political capital in Iraq and has lost a good deal of credibility over the whole WMD fiasco. Islamic Fundamentalism is still on the rise.

God knows what else is on the horizon. Four years ago, no one forsaw 9/11 in anything more than a few novels and made-for-TV movies. We could be dealing with a whole new group of crazies by then, with some agenda we hardly understand.

So for the winners, live it up and party while you can, because there's always something new, coming around the corner, and it's rarely friendly.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

Because the Red States & Blue States were so similar to what we saw last time - and because increasing numbers of voters on one side were almost perfectly balanced out by an equal increase on the other, I think that the "rift" is a little more pronounced than usual.

But I have been around awhile, and the one thing that's certain is that nothing is ever certain.

In 1964, LBJ won one of the biggest presidential landslides in American history. Four years later, he couldn't even get the nomination of his own party.

In 1972, Richard Nixon won a gigantic landslide over George McGovern. Four years later, he had already resigned in disgrace, and a close contest ensued between Carter & Ford.

Most elections are not decided by the far right or the far left, or the south or the north. They are decided by the big, swirling mass of people in the middle, many of whom don't give a thought to politics until a few weeks before the election. And they are a fickle lot.

The religious right is taking a certain amount of credit for Bush's win in this election, and there is no doubt that they were a big factor. But that same group could easily become a political liability four years from now. It's happened before. I guarantee it will happen again.

Republicans can feel good today, but they should keep a few things in mind. Iraq is a mess, and someone is going to have the dirty job of cleaning it up. It's not going to be pretty. The deficit is reaching almost shocking proportions. The party that prides itself on fiscal responsibility is going to have to do something about that. The tax cuts did not stimulate the economy as much as anyone hoped, and there's not that much more to cut. Bush may have to raise taxes to make ends meet. I seem to recall another member of the Bush family having to do exactly that.

Social Security is a mess. Health care is a mess. We have an aging population - and one that's living longer - and as the Baby Boomers get grayer, there is going to be some serious shiat flying.

And it's an historical fact that most presidential administrations, regardless of the party, lose a lot of their energy and luster in those cases where they have won a second term. I don't purport to understand the reason for that. Probably has something to do with a loss of energy, the spectre of certain promises unkept, expectations unrealized, and the great fickle mass just getting tired of the same old faces. Maybe bitterness and renewed energy from the losing camp plays a big role. But, for whatever reason, it's almost never as good on the second date..

Worldwide, the U.S. expended a lot of political capital in Iraq and has lost a good deal of credibility over the whole WMD fiasco. Islamic Fundamentalism is still on the rise.

God knows what else is on the horizon. Four years ago, no one forsaw 9/11 in anything more than a few novels and made-for-TV movies. We could be dealing with a whole new group of crazies by then, with some agenda we hardly understand.

So for the winners, live it up and party while you can, because there's always something new, coming around the corner, and it's rarely friendly.

Excellent post! Agree with all you said here.

I'll take a few months to let the wounds heal. Hopefully, this administration will extend an olive brach and try to be more reflective of all Americans. It won't take long before we'll know if deeds and actions match the rhetoric.

[enjolras]

I'll take a few months to let the wounds heal. Hopefully, this administration will extend an olive brach and try to be more reflective of all Americans. It won't take long before we'll know if deeds and actions match the rhetoric.

Around the time the first supreme court nominations come due I would imagine.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Oddly enough, given another term, I believe Smirk will have an opportunity to fulfill his promise to be a "uniter--not a divider."

I think I see an insult coming...

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

He will most certainly continue to unite more and more people of all walks of life and all political persuasions--against him.

Yep, sure enough, right on cue.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

In fact, it might very well be that our only hope is some sort of civil war between the moderates and the neo-cons in the republican party culminating in a bipartisan effort to impeach the monkey king.

As for the alleged cultural divide in America, part of it is real and a much larger part is manufactured by the right-wing and its media echo chamber/virtual reality machine, IMO.

Did someone just mention that LABF is on the fringe of American politics? I wonder where anyone would get that idea.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Around the time the first supreme court nominations come due I would imagine.

I think it will be reasonable if George W. Bush nominates judges that are about as conservative as Ruth Bader Ginsberg is liberal, don't you?

[patteeu]

In one sense, I think the likelihood that GWBush will get to reshape the Supreme Court in the next few years might be a positive development with respect to bridging this cultural divide. I'm not sure I can articulate my thoughts though, but I'll give it a shot.

For many years, we have had an equally divided Supreme Court. Many highly contentious issues have been decided by rulings of 5-4. Throughout this time, there has been a constant state of uncertainty over how the court would eventually rule on issues that appear to be destined to be litigated to the highest level of our judiciary. By replacing a couple of liberal/moderate justices with reliable conservatives (or replacing conseratives with reliable liberals which is far less likely), GWBush will be reshaping the court into a more predictible institution. This will shift the focus of political arguments back to the legislature (where most of them belong anyway IMO) and lead political activists to wage a different kind of battle: one for the hearts and minds of the public instead of for the hearts and minds of a very few lawyerly justices (who have been trained since law school to consider innovative ways to interpret law and) who may be concerned with their place in history as much as anything else.

The stability of the court will also have an effect of setting realistic expectations in the minds of the general public. Let me take gay marriage as an example. If everyone KNOWS that there isn't a chance in hell that the Supreme Court will broaden it's interpretation of the equal protection clause to create a right to gay marriage, then gay marriage proponents won't look for a short-cut solution in the courts. And they won't be outraged when they get a taste of that solution (as they did this past year), only to find that either the unpredictible Supreme Court takes it away again or to find that a public that is not ready for that step (in what I see as an inevitable social evolution) decides to do something to keep the courts in line like pass constitutional amendments or statutory definitions.

I'm sure this argument is full of flaws since I'm just kind of making it up on the fly, but I do think the judicial instability has been a source of division recently. Maybe we will see how it turns out in a few years.

[Raider Bill]

Originally Posted by patteeu

In one sense, I think the likelihood that GWBush will get to reshape the Supreme Court in the next few years might be a positive development with respect to bridging this cultural divide. I'm not sure I can articulate my thoughts though, but I'll give it a shot.

For many years, we have had an equally divided Supreme Court. Many highly contentious issues have been decided by rulings of 5-4. Throughout this time, there has been a constant state of uncertainty over how the court would eventually rule on issues that appear to be destined to be litigated to the highest level of our judiciary. By replacing a couple of liberal/moderate justices with reliable conservatives (or replacing conseratives with reliable liberals which is far less likely), GWBush will be reshaping the court into a more predictible institution. This will shift the focus of political arguments back to the legislature (where most of them belong anyway IMO) and lead political activists to wage a different kind of battle: one for the hearts and minds of the public instead of for the hearts and minds of a very few lawyerly justices (who have been trained since law school to consider innovative ways to interpret law and) who may be concerned with their place in history as much as anything else.

The stability of the court will also have an effect of setting realistic expectations in the minds of the general public. Let me take gay marriage as an example. If everyone KNOWS that there isn't a chance in hell that the Supreme Court will broaden it's interpretation of the equal protection clause to create a right to gay marriage, then gay marriage proponents won't look for a short-cut solution in the courts. And they won't be outraged when they get a taste of that solution (as they did this past year), only to find that either the unpredictible Supreme Court takes it away again or to find that a public that is not ready for that step (in what I see as an inevitable social evolution) decides to do something to keep the courts in line like pass constitutional amendments or statutory definitions.

I'm sure this argument is full of flaws since I'm just kind of making it up on the fly, but I do think the judicial instability has been a source of division recently. Maybe we will see how it turns out in a few years.

.





Nice post.. I agree that the Left's end run around the legislature and to the Judiciary exacerbates the rift that exisits in this country.

There are 2 distinct sets of values/worldviews. The mainstream and the wacky leftist worldview. By taking the fight right to the court democracy is bypassed and people in the red states feel that this garbage is foisted on them by Yankee Liberal types.


Kerry got housed (lost by double digits percentagewise) in 20 states. Bush only lost 8 by double digits (including DC). I saw a county by county map on television and the entire thing was red with a few islands of blue.

When these morality issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are polled independent of a political candidate, they go down in flames along the lines of 60-70 percent against.

Why was the election much closer then? I don't know. One possibility is that there are more groups who reliability and unthinkingly vote upwards of 70% democratic come election time although if asked about any of these issues would more likely than not be against them. African Americans (80 percent plus) , Jewish Americans (75% plus). This voting block far outweighs the 4 million Evangelicals that made the difference this year.

I would submit that the views of the right are more represenative of the mainstream than those of the left. Until the democrats are unhitched from the gay and abortion bandwagons they are doomed to failure IMO.

[enjolras]

When these morality issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are polled independent of a political candidate, they go down in flames along the lines of 60-70 percent against.

Isn't the job of the Judiciary to basically serve as a check on the majority (as represented by Congress)? The whole system is designed to allow for limited majority rule, but always restrained by minority rights. That's what the right just doesn't seem to understand, and it's why a homogenous supreme court is such a dangerous thing. When the judiciary, the congress, and the president are ideologically aligned.. America suffers. Just because 60 or 70% of Americans feel that something is wrong... doesn't mean it's wrong. We've been down this road to many times before... and always it has been up to the judiciary to eventually make things right.

The most stunning problem I have with the Republican agenda is that social conservatism is very much a one way street. It leaves to room for dissension. The idea is that if something is not popular, it must be wrong. I continue to hope that some day we'll finally understand that morality and government are two very seperate things.. until then we need a independent and benevolent judiciary to make sure that the majority opinion does not suppress the minorities rights.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Isn't the job of the Judiciary to basically serve as a check on the majority (as represented by Congress)? The whole system is designed to allow for limited majority rule, but always restrained by minority rights. That's what the right just doesn't seem to understand, and it's why a homogenous supreme court is such a dangerous thing. When the judiciary, the congress, and the president are ideologically aligned.. America suffers. Just because 60 or 70% of Americans feel that something is wrong... doesn't mean it's wrong. We've been down this road to many times before... and always it has been up to the judiciary to eventually make things right.

The most stunning problem I have with the Republican agenda is that social conservatism is very much a one way street. It leaves to room for dissension. The idea is that if something is not popular, it must be wrong. I continue to hope that some day we'll finally understand that morality and government are two very seperate things.. until then we need a independent and benevolent judiciary to make sure that the majority opinion does not suppress the minorities rights.

Take the gay marriage issue for example.

I don't know how anyone can make the argument that the judiciary is providing a check in this case when it is elements within the judiciary itself that are trying to transform a societal norm that has been in existence since the birth of our country.

When the courts are re-interpreting the constitution in ways that the authors and ratifiers would have never dreamed, they are doing more than just legislating from the bench (legislation normally requires a mere majority in Congress, for the most part), they are amending the constitution (which is supposed to require super majorities in Congress and approval from 3/4 of our states).

This is what the left "doesn't seem to understand." Although, in reality, I think they do understand it, they just don't like it. They prefer the current system which has been moving the country in their direction for 70 or 80 years.

[watermock]

It's not a matter of majority or minority. It's a matter of interpreting the constitution, not legislating from the bench. If congress and the President want to change the constitution, mechanics are in place. It also requires a majority of states to ratify it.

It's not the place for the courts to change laws. Ever hear the term "equal protection under the law?"

always it has been up to the judiciary to eventually make things right.

. No it isn't!! It's to interpret the constitutions. The courts are not a "fix it" function. They interpret what is constitutional. They are trying to legislate from the bench. That isn't their function.

That is why they call it Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. It's not ruling for the majority or neglecting minorities altho the court has gone thru some pretty conservative eras in the past, many times with DixieCrat segregationists. How amusing you don't have a clue about history.

Thank God Bush won so we don't have a fool like Kerry or Hillary throwing in fools that think the constitution is something they can wipe their asses with.


Finally, it's utterly rediculous to assert that the Courts has an Republican agenda, you sound like LABF. The courts have been trending left, and at times, far left for decades, particuliarly the San Fransisco court of appeals. You not even close to having your facts straight.

[-Slap-]

Originally Posted by AlecRaenos

Nothing new in cultural gaps enjorlas. This is America and has always had them always as bad as they are now.

The thing is, no matter how divided we get on how our society should proceed forward, we stand united together with one another when we need to.

You also have to ask yourself if bridging this gap is what is wanted? Differences of opinion and different viewpoints lead to new viewpoints that may be improvements over any of the previous ones. It sparks discussion and provokes passion. This is our greatest strength as a nation is our cultural diversity and the huge gaps between them. Politically we are divided into more than just two groups. I would be hard pressed to find another "republican" who agreed with me on all political issues. The lines are not as clear as the media would like them to be. Not so cut and dry. I find myself and many americans do as well, in a position where I agree with about half or so of each party. Most americans are like this. I think the split comes from the fringes who represent a very small minority of the country.

Take LABF and watermock. Both fringe people (really mock isnt but most think he is because they havent chatted with him so I am going with that) and pretty much the only fringe fanatics around (with the occasional Becky and Robb thrown in for good times). Most people are somewhat down the middle. You have Rohirrim and Slug who are fairly far to the left but not on the fringe and then you have patteau and errand who are fairly far to the right but not on the fringe. Then you have pretty much the rest of us somewhere in the middle, 70/30 to 50/50.

It appears split and a growing split between us but it isnt. I get along with democrats and republicans in my life and quite frankly I see no difference between the two when politics is left out of everyday discussion. Our ideals may be increasingly growing apart but then again, that is back to the fringes that are getting farther apart, not the vast majority of americans.

JMO.

I'm a Democrat and I hate you a little more every day.

Its times like this I wish TJ had a smiley of some guy wagging his schwein.

[Old Dude]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Massachusetts State Court that made the ruling about gay marriage that started this whole thing? And didn't they do that on the basis of their own State laws rather than on the US Constitution? Last time I looked at the US Supreme Court, it was a 5-4 republican majority. It has, in fact, been ruled by republicans for a long time due to all the appointments by Nixon and Reagan.

I'm not sure that I see the same liberal trend in the US Supreme Court that others perceive. Not for the past 30 years, anyway. After nearly ruling the death penalty unconstitutional back in 1972, they've consistently upheld it since then with only minor tweaks (like killing the mentally retarded). They've made inroads into the warrant requirement with all sorts of good faith and "emergency" exceptions, they've cut back on Miranda, they've ruled that little more than a warm body is necessary to qualify as effective assistance of counsel, they've reduced the standard of probable cause required for various sorts of searches - and cars can be searched almost at will now.

Nor am I aware of any really groundbreaking decisions in the areas of discrimination, education or anything else.

Seem to me that the people counting on judicial "activism" are really the anti-abortion forces, who are still trying to get Roe vs Wade overturned thirty years after the fact.