Was that (asked recently of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia) a political question?

At the risk of being politically and sexually redundant, I keep saying that when the political becomes sexual, then the sexual is political.

Well, I'm glad to see that on this point at least, left and right are increasingly finding agreement.

Here's Professor Bainbridge discussing a remark from Brian Leiter:

Why is incivility, for purposes of making a political statement, especially inapposite in this case as against any other guest of the Law School?

The idea that Supreme Court justices or any other judges should be immune from political criticism - or even political retribution - is absurd given the extent to which those same judges have intruded themselves into the political domain by Constitutionalizing the culture wars.

(Via Glenn Reynolds)

And I can think of lots of political questions we can start asking a lot of people.

But just because I'll defend to the death your right to make me vomit, I don't see why anyone has to pretend any of this is dialogue......

What does your mother suck in hell, anyway?

And the hell with the questions! Let's just make a "political statement!"

Why is incivility, for purposes of making a political statement, especially inapposite in this case as against any other guest of the Law School?

Why indeed?

Good intelligent questions, and I am sure we can expect lots of intelligent dialogue!

UPDATE: Here's a Drudge tidbit:

Ann Coulter epitomizes the way politics is now discussed on the airwaves, where opinions must come violently fast and cause as much friction as possible, TIME’s John Cloud claims in this week’s cover story.

Surely, there's a way to cut down on politeness and niceness in the blogosphere?

MORE: Or is the blogosphere already the way Drudge apparently wants it to be?

....loud, ugly and boring with a thousand voices screaming for attention.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

AND MORE: There's an important distinction often lost in the din of these debates, and that's the difference between the First Amendment right to be loud, obnoxious, insulting, and illogical -- and whether or not that's a desirable method of discussion or debate. Sure, it goes without saying that there are a lot of obnoxious blogs. But there's a continuous, constantly evolving process of civilized, ongoing debate in the blogosphere -- and it cannot be silenced or stopped by anyone. Which is why I think the blogosphere represents civilization (at least civilized discourse) at it's finest.

(I'll leave such hyperbole as calling it "the salvation of civilization" to others....)

MORE (04/18/05): Roger L. Simon has more on Drudge's apparent blogophobia:

A few weeks ago, I was linked on the Drudge Report (in red, no less), concerning some original reporting I was doing on Oil-for-Food. No, my server didn't crash but the link, which had gone up in the evening, was gone by morning. Reason: it was put up by Andrew Breitbart in California and removed by Drudge himself in Florida the next day. Breitbart, who is very blog-friendly and was then doing half the Drudge Report, had made the citation and Drudge took it off. No matter that the story proved to be accurate. Our Matt evidently can't stand on line competition. No real surprise there.