If nothing else, the Jerry Springer episode that is the Brett Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court nomination hearings should serve as a cautionary tale for every teenager who ever thought, “You know what? I believe I’m going to drink alcohol. And not only that, but I’m going to drink a LOT of it.”

There’s a chance that nominee Brett Kavanaugh could lose out on earning a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court because of something he may — or may not — have done 36 years ago as a drunken 17-year-old.

How sobering is that thought, young people?

A woman named Christine Blasey Ford has accused a drunken Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party back in 1982. He was 17, she was 15.

OK, so it’s a scientifically proven fact that 17-year-olds don’t always make the wisest choices in life. In fact, the current thinking on the subject is that the human brain isn’t even fully developed until one is in his or her mid-20s. Meaning, teenagers can do some totally ill-advised things on their way to becoming fully functioning adults.

And you know who else does more than their share of stupid stuff? Drunk people.

So, combine those two pre-existing conditions — mental immaturity and alcohol — and you get a recipe for the kind of thing that may come back to bite Kavanaugh squarely on the back of his robes.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the dysfunctional political family we’ve become means that no one is in a particularly forgiving, compromising mood when it comes to these Supreme Court appointments. Democrats are still angry about the the Merrick Garland nomination in 2016, and Republicans continue to seethe about Robert Bork’s 1987 nomination.

Democrats talk a good #metoo game, but they care less about closure for Ford than stopping a conservative Trump nominee by whatever means necessary.

And don’t even get me started on the Republicans. Those two quick, muffled concussive explosions you heard earlier in the week? That was the country’s Irony Meter, along with the Hypocrisy Barometer, simultaneously detonating from overuse.

Watching Republicans try to ramrod Kavanaugh through the nominating process while they’ve still got the political upper hand is one thing. But hearing these same Republicans then whining about how Democrats are trying to delay the process until after the mid-term elections?

Wait, so these are the same Republicans who, because of some misguided belief that a president shouldn’t be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his final year of office — ran out the shot clock on Merrick Garland, right?

It’s both irony and hypocrisy at their finest. Or, rather, worst.

If Kavanaugh is indeed guilty, my guess is that what Ford truly wants from him — much more than simply denying a seat on the bench — is a sincere acknowledgement and heartfelt apology from the adult Brett for the teenage Brett’s actions.

Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying here. Sexual assault is a serious crime no matter what the age or chemically altered state of the perpetrator. There is absolutely no excuse for such reprehensible behavior in a human being. Period. Full stop.

So this is in no way an attempt to excuse what a teenage Brett Kavanaugh might have done. But the fact is, we may never know what really happened back in 1982. And in the absence of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s difficult to argue that Kavanaugh be penalized.

Having said that, I must confess that what concerns me as much as an alleged sexual assault from a few decades ago is Kavanaugh’s actual response from a few days ago. The nominee has repeatedly made a point of saying a Supreme Court nominee has to stay “three ZIP Codes away” from politics, then turned around and delivered the political mail straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.

On Thursday, Kavanaugh angrily accused Democrats of a coordinated character assassination plot — funded by millions of dollars from left-wing groups — that was intended as some sort of revenge or payback on behalf of the Clintons for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win.

And that’s where, at least for me, Kavanaugh lost the nomination. The minute he stooped to the same partisan tactics that bloviating senators on both sides of the aisle had been using, he failed the job interview.

A Democratic hit job? Possibly. But then again, there’s no shortage of examples of both Democrats and Republicans doing whatever it takes to put party above country. An innocent man goaded into a fiery display of righteous indignation? Perhaps. But indignation — righteous or otherwise — is hardly what is needed in a dispassionate, impartial judge.

And so, with his accusations of a vast liberal conspiracy, Kavanaugh lost both my respect and my belief that he has the measured temperament for such an important lifetime appointment. Because a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court needs to be well beyond that sort of partisan politics.

Well, two ZIP Codes beyond, at the very least.