More than a decade after he was ignominiously sacked by CBS News for running a story using supposedly 1960s-era documents that were created in Microsoft Word and run through a photocopy machine a couple of times in an attempt to torpedo George W. Bush's re-election bid, Dan Rather is back.

Rather's rehabilitation has been mostly to thanks to a lame movie that purported to prove that there was some typewriter that miraculously produced what late 1990s Microsoft Word would produce, and CNN's Brian Stelter's decision to have Rather as a regular guest on a show laughably called "Reliable Sources."

The disgraced journalist decided to weigh in today on Twitter on the subject of "originalism" or "textualism" when it comes to analyzing laws or the Constitution in regard to the Amy Coney Barrett nomination.

If you want to be an “originalist” in law, maybe you should go all the way. Cooking on a hearth. Leeches for medicine. An old mule for transportation. Or maybe you can recognize that the world changes.

— Dan Rather (@DanRather) October 14, 2020

The man knows that isn't true, doesn't he? He's really not that ill-informed or stupid, is he?

Sadly, I saw one of my former newspaper colleagues post this to Facebook, and not in a mocking fashion.

Journalism's wounds are self-inflicted.