On her third day of questioning, Amy Coney Barrett had to endure another round of disingenuous Senators using the 30 minutes allotted to them to opine about topics unrelated to her jurisprudence. I daresay no one did this better than Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ).
Booker behaved even more emotional and uptight than normal, repeatedly asking Barrett specific questions about policy or hypothetical cases she had thus far refused to answer the two days prior. That didn't stop him from trying, whether it was to trip her up or look like a hero to the social justice brigade.
In fact, Booker, like many other Senators, spoke more than Barrett did.
Booker often asked Barrett questions that had little to do with what her upcoming role as Supreme Court Justice will entail. Here is one example:
Booker: "Is it morally wrong to separate a child from a parent for no reason of safety?"
Amy Coney Barrett: "I can't express a view on that," Barrett said. "I'm not expressing assent or dissent with the morality of that position—I just can't be drawn into a debate about the administration’s immigration policy."
Publications that cater to women had a field day reporting this anecdote. Their coverage expressed outrage and feigned shock that a mother of seven would fail to condemn this.
Curiously, Booker became obsessed for a period of his time with lamenting the so-called rampant racism in the country. In a bizarre attempt to prove that Barrett holds racist or homophobic views, Booker ranted about the state of the country and asked another series of "gotcha" questions about race she couldn't possibly answer if she were the impartial judge she must be.
Booker's questions were mostly a guise for lengthy political speeches about pet topics that he likes, that make him sound good to his district, and demonstrate his disdain for Trump.
Of course, Booker has a right to ask whatever he wants while retaining a seat on the coveted Judiciary Committee. However, he does a disservice to his own constituents and the rest of the country when he takes his time to grandstand, ask questions Barrett couldn't answer under any pretense of neutrality fairness, and generally opine about his extreme views on racism. His lengthy, emotional statements only served to draw attention to himself and failed to even give Barrett a chance to demonstrate her knowledge of the law at the very least.