The Senate Judiciary Committee spent Tuesday questioning Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in a marathon session that featured exchanges about judicial independence, the future of the Affordable Care Act and any election-related cases that could come before the Supreme Court later this year.

Here are the key takeaways from the second day of the hearings.

After more than 11 hours -- and not a single note in sight in front of Barrett on her witness table -- Graham adjourned the second day of hearings about 8:15 p.m. after expressing pleasant surprise with the civility in the proceedings so far and complimenting the nominee.

"You have been very patient, very poised and I really appreciate the way you have handled yourself," he told Barrett. "I quite frankly think this has been a good example of what can be in the Judiciary Committee -- challenging questions on things that matter to people and a way you can leave the arena saying, well, that worked pretty well," Graham said.

Barrett’s confirmation hearings continue Wednesday at 9 a.m. for another round of questioning from the committee’s 22 senators with each getting 20 minutes apiece.

-ABC News Trish Turner

As with Republicans before her, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., gave Barrett the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind her originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution.

“Judges are not policymakers. We live in a pluralistic society where we have lots of different views on lots of different matters,” Barrett said.

"So, who am I or who is any judge to say that their result -- 'oh, just this once I will reach the result that seems the best even if runs against the law that the people have ratified,'" Barrett said. "And so, it would be wrong because I don't think people -- I think I said earlier -- want to live under the law of Amy. We have the United States Constitution and that's what judges should be faithful to," she said.

"I think probably the law of Amy prevails at the Barrett household over those children?" Blackburn said with a smile.

"50/50," Barrett joked.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., fired back at Harris in his line of questioning, claiming that Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., had called Barrett a “liar” when, while she did not use the word, strongly implied that Barrett would not be impartial as she said she would be when it came to considering abortion rights and the ACA.

Kennedy led Barrett through the wording of the Supreme Court oath to administer the law in an impartial manner.

"Are you going to take that oath and affirm it if you are confirmed?" he questioned. "Not lying?"

"Yes," Barrett replied. "Not lying. I took that oath before I began as a judge in the Seventh Circuit. I've never violated that oath. I would take it again. Oaths are serious to me."

“Senator Harris just called you a liar,” Kennedy quipped back. “She said if you take that oath, you would be lying. That you have already made up your mind on how you will vote on some cases, particularly dealing with abortion and the Affordable Care Act. Let's cut to the chase. She said you are a liar. Are you a liar?

“I am not a liar,” Barrett replied.

“I want you to tell me again. Look me in the eye. You're in front of God and country. If you take that oath, will you meet it?” Kennedy asked.

“I will,” Barrett answered.

“Do you swear to God?” he said.

“I swear to God. I have sworn at the Seventh Circuit. I meant it there too,” she said.

“You will never break that oath? No matter what your personal feelings are? No matter what your religion is?” he continued.

“No matter what my religion is,” she said.

“When Senator Harris and her colleagues say you are a liar, they are wrong?” he finally asked.

“They are,” Barrett said.

Though Barrett has been careful about providing her personal view on abortion, repeatedly citing her responsibility to be impartial as a sitting judge, when asked directly by Kennedy if she has a view on it, Barrett confirmed, “I do have personal feelings about abortion.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, deeming the battle in the hearing room “ACA versus ACB,” said predictions from Democrats about how nominees will make decisions is “propaganda in order to try to make a political point.”

“So judge,” he asked, “you're not willing to make a deal?”

“No, Senator Cornyn,” Barrett replied emphatically. “I'm not willing to make a deal, not with the committee, not with anyone. I'm independent.”

In what became something of a civics lesson, Cornyn asked Barrett why she thinks the American people agree to surrender their right to self-govern and instead live under their elected representatives, the Constitution and “nine people who don't run for election and who serve for life -- why in the world should the American people do that?”

“I think part of the rationale for courts adhering to the rule of law and for judges taking great care to avoid imposing their policy preferences is that it's inconsistent with democracy. Nobody wants to live with the 'law of Amy.' My children don't even want to do that. I can't as a judge get up on the bench and say you are going to live by my policy preferences because I have life tenure and you can't kick me out if you don't like them,” Barrett said.

Asked if she agrees with the belief of Justice Scalia that to be a good and faithful judge, one must resign themselves to the fact that they may not always like the conclusions reached, Barrett said yes.

“It is your job to pass the statutes. It is your job to choose policy. Then it's my job to interpret those laws and apply them to facts of particular cases,” Barrett said. “They don't always lead me to results that I would reach if I were queen of the world and I could say ‘you win, you lose or this is how I want it to be’ because I just don't have the power to impose my policy preferences or choose the result I prefer. That's just not my role. I have to go with what you guys have chosen.”