Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., assailed Judge Jackson over her sentencing of those child pornography defendants and alleged that she fell below the federal recommendation in some cases "because she doesn't use the enhancements available to her."

"Folks, what she is saying, the reason she's always below the recommendation, I think, is because she doesn't use the enhancements available to her. She takes them off the table. And I think that's a big mistake, judge. I think that every federal judge out there should make it harder for somebody to go on a computer and view this filth," Graham told her.

The government's aforementioned sentencing guidelines, created before the internet was widely available, call for an enhancement on child porn offenses based on the number of images sent by mail were involved, meaning anyone who now is committing the crime online with ability to access or send many more images now gets an automatic stiffer punishment.

Jackson argued that's unfair for those who use the mail because they get shorter sentences and would mean those who use a computer, even first time offenders, get longer sentences.

"Senator, all I'm trying to explain is that our sentencing system, the system that Congress has created, the system that the sentencing commission is the steward of, is a rational one. It's a system that is designed to help judges do justice in these terrible circumstances by eliminating unwarranted disparities, by ensuring that the most serious defendants get the longest periods of time in prison," she said. "What we are trying to do is be rational in our dealing with some of the most horrible kinds of behavior."

Graham wouldn't see her side and said he thinks Jackson sentences lower whenever a computer is involved.

"All I can say is, your view of how to deter child pornography is not my view. I think you are doing it wrong and every judge who does what you are doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited," he said.

After their lengthy exchange, Senate Judiciary Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who had to interrupt Graham several times to allow Jackson to finish, said the onus was on Congress to upgrade the sentencing guidelines, to which Graham agreed.

Notably, the sentences Graham is now taking issue with were on Jackson's record when he voted last year to confirm her to the nation's second-highest court.

-ABC News' Trish Turner

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."