Under questioning from Sen. Klobuchar, Barrett said Roe v. Wade is not a "super-precedent" -- so it could theoretically be overturned by the Supreme Court. 

Earlier, Barrett said that Brown v. Board of Education, which established that racial segregation in schools is unconstitutional, is one of just a handful of cases she and some others consider to be "super-precedent" or settled law.

“Is Roe a super-precedent?” Klobuchar asked, before Barrett asked in return, “How would you define ‘super-precedent?’”

“I'm asking you,” Klobuchar said.

“People use super-precedent differently. The way that I was using it in the article that you’re reading was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors ... seriously push for their overruling. I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe v. Wade which I think indicates Roe v. Wade doesn't fall in that category. Descriptively means it's a case, not a case that everyone has accepted,” Barrett said. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., used the metaphor of "following the tracks" to suggest how Barrett would likely vote on landmark cases involving health care, abortion and voting rights, using Barrett’s past writings and the words of President Trump. 

"I think the American people have to understand that you would be the polar opposite of Justice Ginsburg," Klobuchar said. "She and Justice Scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. So that's what concerns me."

Klobuchar pressed Barrett on voting rights, raising Barrett’s dissent in the Kanter v. Barr case Sen. Durbin raised earlier, in which Barrett suggested the Constitution protects the right of non-violent felons to own guns but does not protect their right to vote -- a right she wrote belongs "only to virtuous citizens."

"How do you define the word virtuous?" Klobuchar questioned. "It doesn't appear in the Constitution… We are living in a time or a lot of people are having their voting rights taken away from them. What's virtuous? 

"Senator, I want to be clear that that is not in the opinion designed to denigrate the right to vote which is fundamental. The distinction between civic and individual rights is one that is present in the court decisions and it has to do with the jurisprudential view," Barrett said, saying it was a common, long-standing judicial term of art, not a character judgment. "It doesn't mean, I think, anybody gets a measure of virtue and whether they are good or not and whether they are allowed to vote. That's not what I said."

Barrett dodged several questions on election-related questions, citing the "Ginsburg rule."

"Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at the polls?" she asked.

"Senator Klobuchar, you know that is eliciting. I'm not sure it's eliciting a legal opinion for me because a reasonable person standard, as you know, is more common in the law. Or just an opinion as a citizen. It's not something really that's appropriate for me to comment on," Barrett replied.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., began her questioning by reminding the committee that the Senate should be passing coronavirus relief right now, not rushing a Supreme Court nomination in an election year. 

“I appreciate Judge, that you said you did not want to be a 'queen.' I would not mind being the queen around here, truth be known,” Klobuchar said, prompting a laugh from Barrett. “But you said that you would not let your views influence you and the like, but the truth is the Supreme Court rulings rule people's lives.”

Klobuchar then quoted Trump promising to appoint a justice who would overturn the Affordable Care Act and asked Barrett, “Do you think that we should take the president at his word when he says his nominee will do the right thing and overturn the Affordable Care Act?” 

“I can't really speak to what the president had said on Twitter,” Barrett said. “He has not said any of that to me. What I can tell you, as I have told your colleagues earlier today, is that no one has elicited any commitment in the case or brought up that commitment in the case. I am 100% committed to judicial Independence from political pressure.”

Klobuchar also quoted from an essay Barrett wrote disagreeing with Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision which upheld the Affordable Care Act. Barrett stood by her interpretation.

“One thing I want to clarify is you say that I criticized Chief Justice Roberts, and I don't attack people. It's just ideas,” Barrett said. “So it was designed to make a comment about his reasoning in that case, which as I have said before is consistent with the majority opinion characterizing it as a left plausible reading of the statute.”