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. 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.