Graham announced a lunch break, which will last until 12:45 p.m. ET. Seven senators have questioned Barrett so far, and there are 15 left to go after the break.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., will be up first when the committee returns. Graham said the panel might take additional breaks later. The hearing could go to 9 p.m. ET or later.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, went on a filibuster of sorts, speaking about the Federalist Papers, judicial philosophy and the foundation of the U.S. legal system — all without a mask. 

Lee recently tested positive for Covid-19 but said he was told Monday by his doctor that he could participate in the hearing in person. He spoke for 30 minutes without a mask on. 

One of the few questions he asked of Barrett was about the difference between will and judgment. She said that will is an imposition of policy preferences as it happens in the making of law and judgment is evaluating that law for its consistency with the Constitution. 

"A judge who approaches a case as an opportunity for an exercise of will has betrayed her judicial duty," she said. 

Under questioning from Sen. Durbin, D-Ill., Barrett appeared to acknowledge that the Constitution and the law are open to multiple interpretations. That can be gleaned from the need for appellate courts, not to mention the fact that there are Supreme Court decisions rendered as majority, concurring and dissenting opinions — meaning two justices can come to the same ruling from different applications of the Constitution to the law.

"It's hard," she said.

That's an acknowledgment of the inherent difficulty in the theories of "originalism" and "textualism" to which she subscribes. If the text and original "public meaning" were clear and agreed upon, there would be no need for a federal judiciary at all.

Originalism "is the original public meaning, not the subjective intent of any particular drafter,” Barrett said under friendly questioning from Sen. Lee, R-Utah. It's the "full body" of Congress that speaks, not any single lawmaker who participates in the process, she continued in rejecting the idea of legislative intent being implied by congressional debates. And yet, liberals and conservatives often vote for the same text believing that it has different meanings.

That's true in Congress and on the Supreme Court, which leads to Barrett's view that "the original public meaning" of laws should be the standard for determining their constitutionality. It is equally true that members of the public have different interpretations of what the law says. That's why there are lawsuits.

Durbin asked Barrett what her legal opinion is about people previously convicted of a felony having the right to own a gun and how that's different from felons having the right to vote. 

Barrett said that owning firearms is an individual right, but voting is only a collective civil right. 

"To the extent, Senator Durbin, that you're suggesting that I have some sort of agenda on felon voting rights or guns or campaign finance or anything else, I can assure you and the whole committee that I do not," she said during the exchange. 

Durbin asked whether Barrett saw the video of George Floyd's death in police custody earlier this year, and Barrett said she has and it was "very, very personal" for her family because she has two Black children. 

She said she cried with her daughter, for example, who was adopted from Haiti, about the video. Barrett said she had to explain to her children what had happened because she said they've had the benefit of "growing up in a cocoon" and not experiencing hatred or violence. 

Barrett, however, said that she couldn't give a broad statement or diagnoses about the "problem of racism" because she said it's "kind of beyond what I'm capable of doing as a judge." 

"I would doubt it," Durbin responded. "I just don't believe you can be as passionate about originalism, and the history behind language that we've had for decades, if not centuries, without having some thought about where we stand today." 

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., expressed concern that Barrett's previous writings that were critical of the Affordable Care Act signal that she would vote to dismantle the law when the Supreme Court rules on it in an upcoming case. 

"I think that your concern is that because I critiqued the statutory reasoning that I'm hostile to the ACA, and that because I'm hostile to the ACA, I would decide a case a particular way," Barrett said. "I'm not hostile to the ACA. I'm not hostile to any statute that you pass." 

Like many did on Monday, several Democrats on the committee have told stories of constituents who rely on Obamacare for their medical conditions and have shown images of them on large easels inside the hearing room for Barrett — and the public — to see. 

Saying they fear Barrett's confirmation would lead to the demise of the 2010 health care law, the Democrats' strategy is to show real people who would suffer if they lost their health insurance provided by the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case challenging the law on Nov. 10. 

Graham announced a 30-minute lunch break after Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, conclude their questions. If both senators use their full allotted time, the lunch break will begin at around noon.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked Barrett to hold up the notepad on the table in front of her and asked if it said anything on it. 

Barrett said it just showed the U.S. Senate letterhead, but nothing was written on it. 

"That's impressive," Cornyn said, given that many witnesses testifying before lawmakers take notes or have notes in front of them. 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who questioned Barrett virtually because of his concerns about Covid-19 safety precautions, asked Barrett if she would recuse herself if a dispute with the 2020 presidential election comes before the court. 

"I want to begin by making two very important points, and they have to do with the ACA, and with any election dispute that may or may not arise," she said. "I have had no conversation with the president or any of his staff on how I might rule in that case."

"It would be a gross violation of judicial independence for me to make any such commitment or for me to be asked about that case and how I would rule," she added. "I also think it would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result."