It was Beat Up the SCOTUS Nominee Day

After Monday’s warm-up session of opening statements, this morning, Judge KETANJI BROWN JACKSON entered what Senate Judiciary Chair DICK DURBIN described as a “trial by ordeal,” with questioning from all 22 members of the panel. The seven morning inquisitors seven had their chance to beat up Mrs. Jackson

Here are some highlights from this morning’s questioning:

— On Roe v. Wade: “‘Roe’ and ‘[Planned Parenthood v.] Casey’ are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy,” Jackson said. “They have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed.”

— On court-packing, Jackson repeatedly declined to wade into the issue: “My North Star is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our Constitutional scheme. In my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues, and certainly not a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court.”

— On marriage rights for same-sex couples: Sen. JOHN CORNYN (R-Texas) asked if Jackson agreed with him that the Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (which found that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry”) creates “a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious faith, and what the federal government says is the law of the land.” “That is the nature of a right,” Jackson replied. “When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

— On claims that she has been lenient with sentencing in child sex abuse cases: “As a mother and a judge who has had to deal with these cases, I was thinking that nothing could be further from the truth,” Jackson said. “I impose a strict sentence and all of the additional restraints that are available in the law. These people [convicted in these cases] cannot use computers in a normal way for decades. I am imposing all of those constraints because I understand how significant, how damaging, how horrible this crime is.”

— On whether she thinks Supreme Court hearings should be televised: “I would want to discuss with the other justices their views and understand all of the various potential issues related to cameras in the courtroom before I took a position on it.”

The most explosive moments from this morning came from LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.), who used a substantial portion of his time to lament the treatment of Justice AMY CONEY BARRETT during her confirmation process.

GRAHAM: “What faith are you, by the way?” JACKSON: “Senator, I am Protestant. Non-denominational.” GRAHAM: “How important is your faith to you?” JACKSON: “Senator, personally my faith is very important. … It’s very important to set aside one’s personal views about things in the role of a judge.”

Then Graham turned it up: “On a scale of 1-10, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion?” Jackson responded: “Senator, I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views.”

Graham continued: “Well how would you feel if a senator up here said, ‘your faith, a dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.’ … Would you find that offensive? I would if I were you. I found it offensive when they said it about Judge Barrett. … You’re reluctant to talk about it because it’s uncomfortable. Just imagine what would happen if people on late-night television called you an ‘effing nut speaking in tongues’ because you’ve practiced the Catholic faith in a way they couldn’t relate to or found uncomfortable. So, judge, you should be proud of your faith. I am convinced that whatever faith you have and how often you go to church, it will not affect your ability to be fair. … Judge Barrett, I thought, was treated very, very poorly, so I just wanted to get that out.”

Graham’s questioning later turned to her work representing Guantánamo Bay detainees, and an amicus brief she filed during her time at a law firm that challenged Bush-era detention policies. The topic produced a tense back-and-forth between Graham and Jackson in which the senator attempted to get an explanation of whether she agreed with the challenge. The context, via NYT’s Charlie Savage

It’s safe to say Graham left unsatisfied. Here’s what he told CNN’s Manu Raju after exiting the room for a break: “Graham emerged from hearing and said it’s ‘fair to say’ he sees red flags with [the] Jackson nomination. He criticized her explanation of defending Guantanamo detainees as an attorney. ‘It just doesn’t make sense to me,’ he told me.”

Graham also lamented that J. MICHELLE CHILDS, a judge from his home state, had not been selected as the nominee, claiming that progressives torpedoed her chances in favor of boosting Jackson.

— Worth noting: Graham was one of three Republican senators who voted to confirm Jackson to her post on the D.C. Circuit.