Stare Decisis Means Nothing?

"She criticized Scalia for his 'faint-hearted' originalism, and instead argued for a 'fearless' originalism that recognizes no legal duty to preserve non-originalist precedent, no matter how entrenched or widely accepted it may be today."

Very important: https://t.co/IueME9eZ06

— Matthew Sitman (@MatthewSitman) October 8, 2020

All that matters is my opinion? That actually unravels the entire system of common law, statutory interpretation, and Constitutional law. It’s not radical, it’s as insane as the “boogaloo” movement. It’s not legal thinking. It’s not thinking at all, dressed up as a “system.” I mean, what is the difference between this and the men who think kidnapping a governor (or blowing up a building in Oklahoma) will change our system of government? Except one wears a white collar, and one wears a blue one.

So one is respected, the other isn’t, and AOC is radical.*

Having studied textual criticism and interpretation and modern philosophy of language (Wittgenstein, Derrida, etc.), as well as jurisprudence, I find “originalism” not just wrong but dangerously ignorant and intellectually indefensible. It disqualified Scalia, IMHO (who bamboozled people into thinking he was smarter than everyone else), and it disqualifies Barrett.