Raising gender balance in the judiciary and the fact that, if confirmed, there would be four women on the Supreme Court, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave Judge Jackson an opportunity to speak to what it would mean to her personally to see more women represented on the nation's highest court in its history.

"I think it's extremely meaningful," Jackson replied. "One of the things that having diverse members of the court does is it provides for the opportunity for role models."

"Since I was nominated to this position, I have received so many notes and letters and photos from little girls around the country who tell me that they are so excited for this opportunity and that they have thought about the law in new ways because I am a woman -- because I am a Black woman -- all of those things people have said have been really meaningful to them," Jackson added.

"And we want, I think, as a country, for everyone to believe they can do things like sit on the Supreme Court. So, having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think, matters," she said. "I also think that it supports public confidence in the judiciary when you have different people, because we have such a diverse society."

As she's asked previous Supreme Court nominees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questioned Judge Jackson on her judicial views on abortion with the nation's high court set to decide cases this term that could overturn decades of legal precedent.

"I do agree with both Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett on this issue," Jackson said, referring to their answers to Feinstein at their confirmation hearings. "Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman's pregnancy."

Feinstein then asked, "Does Roe v. Wade have the status of being a case that is a super precedent, and what other Supreme Court cases do you believe have that status?"

"Well senator, all Supreme Court cases are precedential, they're binding. And their principles and their rulings have to be followed," she said.

"Roe and Casey, as you say, have been reaffirmed by the court, and have been relied upon, and reliance is one of the factors that the court considers when it seeks to revisit or is asked to revisit a precedent," she continued. "In all cases, the precedent of the Supreme Court would have to be reviewed pursuant to those factors because stare decisis is very important."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina brought up Judge J. Michelle Childs, a U.S. District Court judge in South Carolina and his preferred nominee for the Supreme Court seat, asking Jackson about progressive groups supporting her nomination over that of Childs.

His voiced tinged with anger, Graham said, "In your nomination, did you notice people from the left were pretty much cheering you on?"

"A lot of people were cheering me on," Jackson replied.

Graham went on to allege there was a concerted effort to disqualify Childs because progressive groups painted her as a "union-busting unreliable Republican in disguise," but Jackson reminded him that she is still a sitting judge and said she has been focused on her cases.

"Would it bother you if that happened?" Graham continued to press.

Jackson, who received Graham's vote last year for the appellate court, answered that it would be "troublesome" if groups were doing anything to interfere with the nomination, but maintained that she wasn't aware of the criticism.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham grilled Judge Jackson on her faith, appearing to try to make a point about how Democrats scrutinized Amy Coney Barrett's Catholic beliefs and membership in People of Praise in her confirmation hearings.

"What faith are you, by the way?" Graham asked first. "Could you fairly judge a Catholic?"

"How important is your faith to you?" he continued. "On a scale of one to 10, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion?"

Fielding the barrage of questions one by one, Jackson said she is a nondenominational Protestant Christian and that her faith is very important to her but declined to go in-depth on her faith practices. She also reminded that there's no religious test under the Constitution.

"I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way," she said. "I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views."

Graham went on to say he was not attacking her but trying to make a point about how "our people" -- conservative judicial appointees -- have been treated in the past.

"This stuff needs to stop. Our people deserve better respect. I hope when this is over, people will say you were well-treated even if we don't agree with you," he said.

-ABC News' Devin Dwyer