Cruz repeatedly attempted to goad Jackson into acknowledging that critical race theory was an element in her judicial philosophy.

Jackson repeatedly declined to take the bait.

When asked by Cruz to define critical race theory, Jackson replied that it is “an academic theory that is about the ways in which race interacts with various institutions.”

“It doesn’t come up in my work as a judge,” she added.

At another point, under questioning from Cruz, Jackson said, “it’s never something I’ve studied or relied on and it wouldn’t be something I would rely on if I was on the Supreme Court.”

In many cases, conservative politicians have conflated the term critical race theory — the academic concept typically taught in college courses to examine how laws and institutions perpetuate racism — with broader lessons surrounding race. Many have used the term to describe ideas and books that they believe are too progressive or political for the classroom.

Cruz, at another point, referred to a 2015 speech in which he claimed Jackson described her job as a judge as using critical race theory.

Jackson replied, “with respect, the quote you are mentioning there was about sentencing policy, not about sentencing.”

Moments earlier, Cruz asked Jackson if she agreed with some of the ideas of the 1619 Project, including whether “colonists declared independence because they wanted to keep the institution of slavery.”

“It is not something I’ve studied, it does not come up in my work,” she replied.

Later, Cruz repeatedly tried to pin Jackson on whether Georgetown Day School, on whose board she sits, teaches critical race theory. He held up a series of children and teen books about race.

“I don’t know. The board does not control the curriculum,” she said. “That’s not what we do as board members.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Jackson a series of questions in regards to the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan landmark decision and what she would do if the court were to reconsider the decision.

Jackson would not say whether she would support a revisit of the precedent.

"Anytime the court is asked to revisit a precedent there are criteria the court uses to decide whether or not to overrule a precedent," said Jackson.

She adds, the criteria would include whether the precedent is wrong or egregiously wrong, whether there are other similar cases, whether or not the precedent is workable.

"It would be what I would look at," she continued.

The case provides First Amendment protections to the press and conservatives have recently begun publicly discussing an effort to have the case overturned.

After a handful of Republican senators vowed during their opening statements to question Jackson on what they say is a pattern of handing down lenient sentences handed down to criminals convicted of making or distributing child pornography, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, did just that. 

Lee, pointing to what he said were 10 cases where Jackson handed down a sentence for such offenders that were below federal guidelines, asked the nominee to explain her reasoning.

Jackson responded by saying that federal guidelines were just one element that judges should look at in determining sentences for these crimes and shouldn’t be the sole factor in judges handing down such sentences.

“The court is looking at all of the evidence consistent with Congress’ factors for sentencing. The guidelines are one factor. But the court is told that you look at the guidelines but you also look at the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the offender. There are a series of factors,” Jackson said.

“In the cases, you are also getting recommendations, and in most of the cases … the government is asking for a sentence below the guidelines because this guideline system is not doing the work in this particular case,” she said.

During the lunch break, Durbin said they spent time doing some research about Cornyn's previous claim that Jackson called the former president and late defense secretary war criminals.

Durbin confirmed that Jackson filed several habeas petitions against the U.S. when she served as a federal public defender in which Bush and Rumsfeld were named in their official capacities.

"You were advocating on behalf of individuals who argued they were civilians, wrongly classified as enemy combatants of the United States. And the filing was part of your professional responsibility to zealously advocate for your clients," Durbin said.

In those petitions, Durbin said the defendants "raised more than a dozen claims for relief, one of which was an allegation that the government sanctioned torture against the individuals, which constituted war crimes under the Alien Tort statute and the Tort statute allows courts to hear cases for alleged violations of the law of nations or the treaties of the United States."

"Apparently, this is what Sen. Cornyn was referencing," Durbin added. "So to be clear, there was no time where you called President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld a 'war criminal.'"

The hearing resumed at 1:39 p.m. ET. Sen. Mike Lee will have the first round of questions.

At 12:52 p.m. ET, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a 30-minute lunch break.

It wouldn’t be a day of Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings if Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., didn’t mention his concerns over dark money.

Whitehouse returned to his preferred topic during his questioning time of Jackson on Tuesday (he mentioned the term 12 times during his opening remarks on Monday), once again expressing his concerns about the role of dark money on the right.

“There is a difference I believe between a dark money interest rooting for someone, and right-wing dark money interests having a role in actually picking the last three Supreme Court justices,” Whitehouse said.

He then referred to a series of posters his staff had made for him that featured examples of GOP politicians, including former President Donald Trump, discussing how they’d rely on lists made by the Federalist Society in determining whom to nominate to the Supreme Court.

Dark money refers to funds raised to influence elections by organizations that aren’t required to disclose the identifies of their donors.

“I think it matters when people are seeking to influence the makeup of the court, that the public understands what business they may have before the court,” he said.

Whitehouse did not ask Jackson about dark money, he instead spent his allotted time for questions merely talking about the topic. Although, toward the end of his remarks, he asked Jackson about the differences between being a trial court judge and an appellate court judge.

Cornyn said Jackson called former President George W. Bush and his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, war criminals in a legal filing and asked her why she did since "it seems so out of character."

Jackson was unsure about what he was referring to and Cornyn said that she made the description when she was representing a member of the Taliban, whom the Defense Department identified as an intelligence officer for the group.

"Senator, I don't remember that particular reference," she said. "I was representing my clients and making arguments. I'd have to take a look at what you meant. I did not intend to disparage the president or the secretary of defense."

Cornyn responded, "Being a war criminal has huge ramifications. You could be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and hauled before that international tribunal and tried for war crimes. So it's not a casual comment, I would suggest."

Later after a lunch break, Durbin told the hearing that a check of Jackson's filings revealed no instance in which she called Rumsfeld or Bush a "war criminal."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a lengthy set of questions that appeared to be making the case that Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalized gay marriage across the country, was faulty.

When asked about gay marriage, Jackson told Cornyn she couldn't comment on the issue of same-sex marriage, since litigation is ongoing.

Cornyn attempted to get Jackson to say it was a person's right if they wanted to hold a "traditional marriage ideology" as part of their religious beliefs.

"Well, Senator, that is the nature of a right. When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation even if means people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs," said Jackson.

Cornyn asked, "Do you share my concern when court takes on role identifying an enumerated right and creates a new right, creates circumstance for those who hold a traditional belief?"

Jackson replied, "I understand that concern and because there are cases that are addressing these sorts of issues, I'm not in a position to comment about my personal views."