Highlights from Senate vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson

As she reintroduces herself to the American public as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ranking Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Jackson what aspect of her record as a judge does she believe has been the most important for the good of the country.

"Well, I think that all of my record is important to some degree because I think it clearly demonstrates that I'm an independent jurist, that I am ruling in every case consistent with the methodologies that I've described, that I'm impartial," Jackson said.

"I don't think anyone could look at my record and say that it is pointing in one direction or another or that it is supporting one viewpoint or another. I am doing the work and have done the work for the past 10 years that judges do to rule impartially and to stay within the boundaries of our proper judicial role," she added.

Trying to home in further on her judicial philosophy, Grassley asked, of the previous 115 justices, are there any of them now or in the past that has a judicial philosophy that most closely resembles her own. She said she hasn't studied the philosophies of all of the prior justices but that her background as a trial judge resembles that of left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"I will say that I come to this position, to this moment as a judge who comes from practice -- that I was a trial judge and my methodology has developed in this context. I don't know how many other justices other than Justice Sotomayor have that same background," she said.

Jackson has also emphasized in previous confirmations hearings that she does not have a judicial philosophy per se, but she applies the same methodology to all the cases she approaches, regardless of its parties.

-ABC News' Trish Turner

Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tried to get more clarity on whether Judge Jackson would support the idea of expanding the Supreme Court beyond nine justices, but Jackson said that was a policy question she couldn't answer.

The question comes after several Republicans said Monday they were disappointed that Jackson hasn't clarified her position on court-packing after she received the support of the progressive group Demand Justice, which is pushing for the court's expansion.

"Respectfully, senator, other nominees to the Supreme Court have responded as I will, which is that it is a policy question for Congress," Jackson said. "I am particularly mindful of not speaking to policy issues because I am so committed to staying in my lane of the system. Because I'm just not willing to speak to issues that are properly in the province of this body."

Presented with the fact that retiring Justice Stephen Breyer and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated their views on the position, Grassley then asked if the Supreme Court has been bought by dark money groups.

"Senator, I don't have any reason to believe that that's the case," she replied. "I have only the highest esteem for the members of the Supreme Court whom I hope to be able to join, if I'm confirmed, and for all of the members of the judiciary."

Continuing to give Judge Jackson opportunities to respond to GOP attacks, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also asked her what impact representing Guantanamo Bay detainees had on her judicial career after Republicans made clear they will take aim at those cases she was assigned as a federal public defender.

"September 11th was a tragic attack on this country. We all lived through it," she began. "We saw what happened, and there were many defenses, important defenses that Americans undertook. There were Americans whose service came in the form of military action. My brother was one of those Americans, those brave Americans who decided to join the military to defend our country."

"After 9/11, there were also lawyers who recognized that our nation's values were under attack, that we couldn't let the terrorists win by changing who we were fundamentally," she continued. "And what that meant was that the people who were being accused by our government of having engaged in actions related to this, under our Constitutional scheme, were entitled to representation -- were entitled to be treated fairly. That's what makes our system the best in the world. That's what makes us exemplary."

She reminded the committee that federal public defenders don't get to pick their clients but said, "You are standing up for the constitutional value of representation -- and so I represented, as an appellate defender, some of those detainees."

In his questioning, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill, criticized attacks from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who accused Jackson Monday of a "long record" of letting child porn offenders "off the hook" in sentencing. Noting that several independent fact-checkers, including ABC News, have found the claims misleading, Durbin gave Jackson a chance to respond by asking what was going through her mind when Hawley leveled that criticism Monday.

"As a mother and a judge who has had to deal with these cases, I was thinking that nothing could be further from the truth," Jackson said, taking a tough tone. "These are some of the most difficult cases that a judge has to deal with because we're talking about pictures of sex abuse of children. We're talking about graphic descriptions that judges have to read and consider when they decide how to sentence in these cases, and there's a statute that tells judges what they're supposed to do."

She noted that federal sentencing laws are set by Congress, and the statute says, "Calculate the guidelines, but also look at various aspects of this offense, and impose a sentence that is, quote, sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment," she said.

Calling the crimes "sickening and egregious," Jackson went on to recall a story she said she tells every child porn defendant "when I look in the eyes of a defendant who is weeping because I'm giving him a significant sentence."

"What I say to him is, 'Do you know that there is someone who has written to me and who has told me that she has developed agoraphobia? She can not leave her house because she thinks that everyone she meets will have seen her, will have seen her pictures on the internet. They're out there forever. At the most vulnerable time of her life, and so she's paralyzed," she said.

"I tell that story to every child porn defendant, as a part of my sentencing, so that they understand what they have done. I say to them that there's only a market for this kind of material because there are lookers. That you are contributing to child sex abuse. And then I impose a significant sentence, and all of the additional restraints that are available in the law," she continued in an emotional riff. "I am imposing all of those constraints because I understand how significant, how damaging, how horrible this crime is."

Jackson noted that in addition to prison terms of many years for the crimes, she also requires "20, 30, 40 years of supervision" and that the offenders "can't use computers for decades."