Deconstructing Hermeneutics in 3 steps

  Here are two loaded terms: "deconstruction" and "hermeneutics".
  I was asked today if I thought the Scriptures were authoritative. I said that that was a nice subject that I enjoyed, that I liked that conversation.
  Suppose I want to come up with some hermeneutic. First I would need to lay out some kind of process with a starting point, a finish line and a modus operandi. At the end I would have a (private) method of "understanding Scriptures".
 It doesn't matter what the hermeneutic is at the end. I want to deconstruct it. First, I'll start saying that because the process was created by someone, that from the start it's poised to be biased (culturally, politically, philosophically, personally, literally, etc) and faulty. So it's no good from the start. Second, I'll say that the text is inherently ambiguous and that language cannot convey meaning. And third I'll say that hermeneutics is irrelevant. "So what?".