While I agree with that statement, and don't care if (or how much) he drank in high school. For me, it was his laughable defense of the drinking - "Ralph club - biggest contributor" - due to his "weak stomach"? He should have just owned up to all of it like an adult and not sat there with horrible excuses that even his parent didn't buy back in the day. Seems there were some money issues that could have used a little more investigation as well.
Then to blame it all on a "Clinton revenge conspiracy"? And throw back questions to a senator (rude and unhinged imo). In my unprofessional opinion, we saw the performance of an alcoholic in badly need of a drink not handling stress at all well. Bodes well for his future.
He was picked for his partisan ideals, plain an simple. What makes it worse is the same panel crying over unfair treatment after denying Garland.
So - maybe "What matters in a SCOTUS associate is their ability to make sound legal decisions" - is no longer enough - you have to be a party hack as well. I guess as long as you deny drinking to excess, then say how much you like beer and cry, it shows you're another stable genius.
The whole process was a fucking embarrassment (for both sides) - but the grandstanding by McConnell and Graham were over the top. I guess these clowns can perform for the circus ringleader to get 'their' job done.