Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

I think you're pretty much correct. The outcome is a foregone conclusion barring a major embarrassment, so the only two things going on are attempting to trick the nominee into saying something embarrassing (extremely unlikely), and pontificating, mostly for supporters, both back home and elsewhere. (In fairness, there's one other element -- taking advantage of a rare opportunity for senators to talk to the Supreme Court about how they think it ought to operate. I think expounding on judicial philosophy is an entirely legitimate activity, even if some of their actual thoughts are fairly idiotic.)

And I also agree that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a large majority of these senators are incapable of even conceiving that a person from the majority could be biased by their background.