Did Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Yearbook Page and Explanations About It Lend Credibility to Anyone?

The ongoing scrutiny of Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court has included a particular focus on his high school yearbook page. Democrats grilled him about terms like "ralphing," "boofing," and the "Devil's Triangle," questioning whether these terms held any relevance to the allegations against him. However, these questions and the resultant exchanges have failed to provide any meaningful insight or clarity, raising serious questions about the relevance and credibility of such lines of questioning.

Context of the High School Yearbook Questions

Months before the confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein posed a series of questions to Brett Kavanaugh regarding his high school yearbook page. Senator Feinstein questioned him about his recollections of specific terms used in the yearbook, such as "ralphing," "boofing," and the "Devil's Triangle," suggesting these terms could be indicative of his behavior during high school.

At the time, the context of these questions was perplexing to many, as these terms were foreign to those not familiar with them. It raised concerns about whether the questions were more about establishing Kavanaugh’s persona as a drinking prankster than whether he had committed any wrongdoings.

Understanding of Terms and Their Irrelevance

During the hearings, Senator Feinstein asked Kavanaugh, "So, you didn't [ralph] for beer?" to which he responded, “I don't have any recollection of what that means.” This response was initially dismissed as a lack of candor. However, Kavanaugh's lack of recollection is not surprising since these terms, such as "ralphing," "boofing," and "Devil's Triangle," are specific to a generation and a context that not everyone is familiar with.

My high school tenure preceded Kavanaugh's by about 15 years, and terms like "ralphing" or "boofing" were likely obscure to me. The same applies to many who were not part of that specific cultural moment. Calling any term "lacking in candor" for not being familiar with it oversimplifies the issue. These terms are not inherently linked to criminal behavior or lack thereof, making their introduction into the hearing process problematic.

Relevance in a Court of Law

Even if we consider the relevance of these terms in a court of law, the questions would likely be objected to as irrelevant. In Ambrose v. Keene, the Supreme Court established that probative evidence must be relevant to the central issue at hand, and the terms in question do not directly relate to the allegations of sexual misconduct.

For example, "ralphing" might indicate either overdrinking or a weak stomach. However, whether one has blackouts is not necessarily linked to the consumption of beer alone. A study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that only one out of 50 college students who experienced blackouts did so from drinking beer alone. This statistic highlights the limited relevance of such terms in establishing a pattern of misconduct.

Evidence and Hearsay Issues

The terms in question could also be deemed hearsay in a legal context. Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In Kavanaugh's case, the yearbook page itself might be considered hearsay unless it can be shown that he authored it entirely and accurately remembered its contents.

However, Kavanaugh testified that he wasn't sure if the yearbook page was entirely his work or if the yearbook editors had embellished to achieve a particular style. This uncertainty makes it difficult to establish the terms as reliable evidence in a legal sense. Courts have strict rules of evidence to ensure that "credibility" is based on something more than prejudice and third-hand information, not whimsical buzzwords from a bygone era.

Since all the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee, except for Dianne Feinstein, are lawyers, they should have been well aware that these questions were entirely inappropriate. Their use of such questions diminished any credibility they had in their inquiries, casting doubt on the entire process.

Conclusion

The questions surrounding Brett Kavanaugh's high school yearbook page and the terms like "ralphing," "boofing," and "Devil's Triangle" fail to provide meaningful insight into the allegations against him. They represent an overreach in terms of relevance and an inappropriate misuse of legal process. Such exchanges do more to obscure the real issues at hand than to clarify them, ultimately undermining the credibility of those making the inquiries.