Highlights from Senate vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson

After airing his grievances over treatment of a different African American judicial nominee for a different post, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., began his questioning Wednesday by firing off a barrage of policy questions and asking Judge Jackson whether she agreed with them.

His first question to the nominee: "Do you believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, Judge Jackson?"

"Under our laws, you have to be a citizen of the United States in order to vote," she replied.

"So the answer would be no?" he asked.

"It's not consistent with our laws, so the answer is no," she said.

"Okay," Graham quipped. "Why don't they do that in New York?"

"Senator, I'm not aware of the circumstances," she said.

"Okay, all right, well that's a good answer. The answer is no," he said. "Can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process?

"Senator, I don't know," she said.

Graham asked another question on abortion, which she also said she didn't know, before Graham added, "That may come before you one day, so just keep an open mind."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., gave Judge Jackson the opportunity to address the American people directly on what kind of court justice she would be, "if and when confirmed."

"What I would hope to bring to the Supreme Court is very similar to what 115 other justices have brought, which is their life experiences, their perspectives," Jackson said. "And mine include being a trial judge, being an appellate judge, being a public defender, being a member of the sentencing commission, in addition to my being a Black woman, lucky inheritor of the civil rights dream."

"And in my capacity as a justice, I would do what I've done for the past decade, which is to rule from a position of neutrality, to look carefully at the facts and the circumstances of every case, without any agendas, without any attempt to push the law in one direction or the other, to look only at the facts and the circumstances interpreting the law consistent with the Constitution and precedents, and to render rulings that I believe and that I hope that people would have confidence in," she added.

Earlier, Leahy praised Jackson's "transparency" and told her she "will become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court."

-ABC News' Trish Turner

Beginning the second and final round of questioning, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., did not use all of his allotted 20-minutes as Democrats, pleased with Judge Jackson’s performance this week, appear on track to confirm Biden’s first Supreme Court nominee.

Durbin responded to the accusation -- made by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas -- that Jackson had called former President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld "war criminals" in a legal filing when, as a federal public defender, she represented Guantanamo Bay detainees. Cornyn complained that Durbin on Tuesday had "editorialized" about the filing in her favor after he left the room following his exchange with Jackson.

"Now I don't understand the difference between calling someone a war criminal and accusing them of war crimes," Cornyn said at the start of Wednesday's session.

Later Wednesday, during his turn, Durbin noted Bush and Rumsfeld were named in the lawsuit for alleged torture crimes in their official capacity, said they were never specifically called "war criminals," and asked Jackson if she'd like to respond.

Without directly addressing the exact language used in the filing and its implications, she reminded the committee that public defenders can't choose their clients, "yet they have to provide vigorous advocacy. That's the duty of a lawyer," she said. "And as a judge now, I see the importance of having lawyers who make arguments, who make allegations."

"In the context of a habeas petition, especially early in the process of the response to the horrible attacks of 9/11, lawyers were helping the courts to assess the permissible extent of executive authority by making arguments, and we were assigned as public defenders," she added. "We had very little information because of the confidentiality, or the classified nature of a lot of the record, and as an appellate lawyer, it was my obligation to file habeas petitions on behalf of my clients."

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., questioned Judge Jackson about a case when she was considering a prisoner's release due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

After reading a line taken out of context from an opinion where she declined the blanket release of inmates, Tillis asked Jackson if her "empathy" and "compassion" could lead her to release criminals.

Jackson noted Tillis was not reading her whole statement and that she decided not to release the defendant in that case. She added that she speaks directly to defendants for public safety and accountability.

"Congress also tells us that one of the purposes of punishment is rehabilitation. My attempts to communicate directly with defendants is about public safety," she said. "It is to our entire benefit to ensure people who come out stop committing crimes."

"You have to go away understanding that I am imposing consequences for your decision to engage in criminal behavior," she added. "I was the one in my sentencing practices who explained those things in an interest of furthering Congress's direction that we’re supposed to be sentencing people so that they can ultimately be rehabilitated to the benefit of society as a whole."

Tillis replied that more than half of the people she sentenced have, "statistically speaking," re-offended and "were back in prison."

-ABC News' Trish Turner