Remember, the answers are no, no, and yes.

Compare and contrast:

A judge shouldn't decide a case by asking, "What outcome seems fair to me here?" or be influenced by the intellectual fashions of the day. In a democracy like ours, judges overstep their bounds unless they base decisions on the actual words of the Constitution or the law in question.

A Supreme Court justice should be grounded in the political philosophy that won the day at the time that he or she was appointed. When need be, the justice will interpret the actual language of the Constitution, or the law in question, in light of that political vision.

These are two snippets, just a few column inches apart, in Katherine Kersten's Thursday column, What the constitution says must prevail. Does this woman have an editor? Does she remember what she said two paragraphs earlier? Is Katherine a complete idiot?

The most result-oriented jurisprudence pales in comparison to this sweeping and contradictory nonsense. The absolutely marvelous thing is that Kersten is so doctrinaire that she undoubtedly doesn't see it, like the woman who walks out a restroom with a stream of toilet paper stuck to her shoe. Spottie has noticed this in several of Kersten's columns, making contradictory points in the same column.

In Monday's column, for example, she says:

The Guantanamo detainees are clearly a dangerous and fanatical bunch.

Followed by:

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that some detainees don't want to leave the base.

Kersten writes stuff like this with absolutely no trace of irony.

Spottie's lawyer friends say the best cross examination is when you don't have to do any, that is when the witness destroys his own credibility by making inconsistent statements. Just like Kersten.

For a good analysis of the Thursday column, read Smartie, guest blogging at Clever Peasantry this week.