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.”

Graham called the Senate Judiciary Committee back into session shortly after 12:45 p.m.

There are fifteen senators remaining in this round. Each has 30 minutes to ask Barrett questions.

After three hours of questioning, Graham announced the Senate Judiciary Committee is in recess until 12:45 p.m.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., homed in on Barrett’s dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a gun rights case from 2019. Barrett was the lone dissenter when a Seventh Circuit panel majority rejected a Second Amendment challenge from a man, Ricky Kanter, found guilty of felony mail fraud and prohibited from possessing a gun under federal and Wisconsin law.

Barrett argued non-violent felons shouldn't be banned for life from gun ownership, writing in her dissent that the Second Amendment “confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense and not limited to civic participation.”

Knowing this, Durbin asked Barrett about the differentiation she made in Kanter between felon voting rights and gun ownership.

“You are saying a felony should not disqualify Ricky [Kanter] from buying an AK-47 but using a felony conviction to deny them the right to vote is all right?” Durbin asked.

Barrett answered confidently but provided little insight into what her Kanter decision might mean for future voting rights cases.

“Senator, what I said was that the Constitution contemplates that states have the freedom to deprive felons of the right to vote. It is expressed in the constitutional text, but I expressed no view whether it was a good idea, whether states should do that. I didn't explore in that opinion because it was completely irrelevant to what limits, if any, there might be on a state's ability to curtail felon voting rights,” she 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.