Here are highlights of her more than 11 hours of questioning Tuesday.
The high-stakes confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett continued Tuesday with the Supreme Court nominee facing questions for more than 11 hours.
Senate Republicans are keeping up their push for a final vote before Election Day despite Democratic calls to let voters decide who should pick a new justice.
Trump nominated Barrett to fill the seat left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The four days of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings are unprecedented, with some members participating virtually and in-person. Barrett is appearing at the witness table to face questions.
Hearings begin at 9 a.m. each day and will be live streamed on ABC News Live.
In opening statements Monday, Democrats argued the nomination puts the health care of millions of Americans at risk amid an ongoing pandemic and some called on Barrett to recuse herself from any presidential election-related cases. Republicans, who say they already have the votes to confirm Trump's pick, defended Barrett's Roman Catholic faith from attacks which have yet to surface from inside the hearing room.
Barrett, 48, was a law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and follows his originalist interpretation of the Constitution. She practiced law at a Washington firm for two years before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, to teach. She was nominated by Trump in 2017 to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the Senate in a 55-43 vote.
Graham called a 30-minute break shortly after 6:20 p.m.
Meanwhile, President Trump, leaving for a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, told reporters, "I think Amy's doing incredibly well. It's been a great day."
President Trump had held his fire about the ongoing confirmation hearing, but criticism from Democratic Sen. Cory Booker prompted him to respond on Twitter.
He specifically charged Booker with making "false charges and statements about me."
The tweet stood in sharp contrast with the civility inside the hearing room.
ABC News' Devin Dwyer reports the outright cordiality between members of both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and between Democrats and Trump's Supreme Court nominee, is far from the polarized politics and deeply personal and hateful attacks seen in recent months and years.
There have been few fireworks and even fewer cases of senators and the nominee talking over each other.
Democrats are going out of their way to avoid cutting Barrett off -- and if they do, doing so with utmost sensitivity.
"Would you like to say something? I don't want to cut you off," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "No, that's okay," said Barrett.
Later, when pressing Barrett on a rape scenario, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., interjected, "I apologize for interrupting you, pressed for time. Respectfully, I want to share another health care story with you."
Booker, who brought theatrics of his own to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, noted "good behavior" by the committee Tuesday.
"Judge, I apologized especially after the good behavior that was noted that we shouldn't be talking over each other. My time is running quickly," he told Barrett.
-ABC News' Jordyn Phelps and Devin Dwyer
Barrett looked uncomfortable with questions raised by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who asked generally about the powers of a president but Barrett noted their current relevancy.
"Do you believe that every president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely for the peaceful transfer of power?" he asked.
"Well, Senator, that seems to me to be pulling me in a little bit into this question of whether the president has said he would not peacefully leave office. To this extent that it's a political controversy, as a judge I want to stay out of it," Barrett replied, before calling the historic peaceful transfer of power "one of the beauties of America."
"Do you think the president has the power to pardon himself or any past or future crimes he may have committed against the United States of America?" he asked.
"Senator Booker, that would be a constitutional question. In keeping with my obligation not to give hints, previews or forecasts of how I would resolve the case, that's not one I can answer," Barrett replied.
Booker also asked if it is unreasonable for those who rely on the Affordable Care Act to believe it might be overturned if she were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
"All I'm asking is can you empathize with that?" Booker pressed. "Can you understand that?"
"Senator, I can certainly empathize with people who are struggling. I can empathize with people who lack health care," Barrett said. "One of the things that was so striking to me when we went to get our daughter, Vivian, from the orphanage in Haiti, the lack of access to basic things like antibiotics. It made me appreciate the fact that we have access to health care. I can certainly empathize with all of that."
She went on to say, "With respect to the ACA, should I be confirmed and as I've said I would consider the issue of recusal, threshold question of law and whether to hear that case."
"As a guy who looks at justices, I was asking you to express that you understand the fear that is in America right now," Booker said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, calling Republicans "hypocritical," said, "This hearing shows the American public exactly what my Republican colleagues' priorities are, ramming through another ideologically-driven justice to the Supreme Court instead of helping the people in our country suffering during this pandemic."
Hirono then asked if Barrett will consider the “real-world impact” of striking down the Affordable Care Act, noting that she and other Democrats have told stories of their constituents who rely on the law.
"Senator, to be clear, I have the utmost empathy, the stories, you know, that you have told, including the story of Veronica's family are very moving. If I were a justice, the commitment that I would make to you and all people affected by the laws is that I would follow the law as you enacted it," Barrett said. "I would do equal justice under the law for all and not try to thwart or disrupt in any way the policy choices that you and your colleagues have adopted."
Not satisfied with her answer, Hirono pressed Barrett, who reiterated her belief that Congress sets the policy and its up to the court to interpret whether those policies are constitutional, effectively refusing to reveal how she might decide on the highly-consequential case before the court on Nov. 10.
"No case comes before a court unless it involves real live people who've had a real-live dispute, and it is the job of a judge deciding every case to take into account the real-world consequences of the parties before it," Barrett said.
"So are you aligning yourself with Justice Ginsburg in terms of what you would consider real-life impacts and the effect it would have on your decision regarding the law?" Hirono asked.
"I don't know what context -- the particular context in which Justice Ginsburg was describing that. I think what I'm trying to align myself with is the law. And I will take into account all factors, including real-world impacts, when the law makes them relevant. As it clearly does, for example, in the doctrine of stare decisis," Barrett said.
Hirono also argued Barrett’s use of the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation" -- coupled with her view that constitutionality should overtake precedent -- worry a large part of the LGBT community. Hirono called the term "outdated" and one used to claim homosexuality is a "choice."
"I don't think that you use the term sexual preference as just -- I don't think it was an accident," Hirono said. The next senator to speak, Republican Joni Ernst of Iowa, gave Barrett the opportunity to respond, and Barrett clarified she did not mean to cause offense with her prior use of term. "I certainly didn't mean, and, you know, would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. If I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergerfeld's holding with respect to same-sex marriage," she said.
