Cornyn further questioned Jackson on the viability of a fetus at 20 weeks gestation, to which Jackson stated, "I'm not a biologist. I haven't studied this. I don't know."

"What I know is that the Supreme Court has tests and standards that it's applied when it evaluates regulation of the right of a woman to terminate their pregnancy," said Jackson.

Cornyn also asked, "Is it your understanding under the current precedent of the Supreme Court that there is a right to abortion up to and including the time of delivery of the child?"

To which Jackson responded, she is "not aware of the court having made a pronouncement about whether or not regulation can extend all the way up until birth. I'm just not aware of that."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that he was upset by Sen. Lindsey Graham's "beyond the pale" questions Wednesday for Jackson.

"As the dean of the Senate ... I'm just distressed to see this kind of a complete breakdown of what's normally the way the Senate's handled," Leahy told NBC News.

The line of questioning by Graham, R-S.C., pressed Jackson on her involvement in sentencing guidelines for child pornography, during which he repeatedly interrupted Jackson.

Leahy responded to questions about if Graham was "badgering" Jackson, saying, "Of course he's badgering [her] ... She came out ahead."

Leahy, however, expressed optimism that Jackson will be confirmed to the court, saying, "She'll be confirmed. It'll be a tremendous improvement to the Supreme Court, but it's been a sad day for the U.S. Senate."

Toward the end of Graham's second round of questioning, the GOP senator went off on a tangent and pressed Jackson about Democrats' handling of the 2018 confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh faced allegations of sexual misconduct including one made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford who said he sexually assaulted her at a gathering when they were teenagers in high school in the early 1980s.

"How would you feel that if I had had a letter from somebody accusing you of something, or crime or misconduct for weeks and I give it to Senator Durbin, just before this hearing is over, and not allow you to comment on the accusation? How would you feel about that?" Graham asked Jackson, who said she didn't understand the context of his question.

Graham asked Jackson if she watched the Kavanaugh hearings. "No, sir," said Jackson, who added that she was generally familiar with what happened during them.

"You were here for Kavanaugh. If she's confused about what happened, some people on the other side had an accusation against Judge Kavanaugh during high school, he sexually assaulted somebody and the rest is history that was known to the people on the other side and never revealed during the meetings they had with Judge Kavanaugh, it was literally ambushed. He was ambushed. How would you feel if we did that to you?" Graham said.

After a back-and-forth with Jackson, Durbin interjected, telling Graham: "Senator, she's had nothing to do with the Kavanaugh hearings."

"No, but I'm asking her about how she may feel about what y'all did," Graham shot back angrily.

After Graham interrupted Jackson several more times, Jackson responded, "Senator, I don't have any comment on what procedures took place in this body regarding [Justice Kavanaugh]."

Graham and Jackson sparred over the details of expedited deportations — an issue at the center of a ruling she handed down as a district judge.

In 2019, Jackson temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to expand fast-track deportations of people in the country illegally. The Trump administration plan sought to expand the terms of fast-track deportations for any person who had been in the U.S. for up to two years. (Previously, the rule had been that the Department of Homeland Security had the authority to fast-track deport people only within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the country for up to 14 days). Her ruling was the subject of Republican attacks in Tuesday’s hearings.

Jackson, probed on Wednesday by Graham to explain how she interpreted the statute in question in arriving at her ruling, attempted to explain that, “It was not the authority given to the agency to deport everyone who has been here for up to 24 months; it was the authority to determine what length of time a person has to be here in order to be subjected to expedited removal.”

Graham, however, argued that, “What the Trump administration did was use the discretion given to it by the statute in a way different than prior administrations.”

“This is an example to me,” he added, “where the plain language of the statute was wiped out by you. You reached a conclusion because you disagreed with the Trump administration.”

“That to me is exhibit A of activism,” he added.

Jackson, reiterating a response to questions on the matter from Grassley on Tuesday, explained that Graham’s interpretation didn’t address the fact that her ruling was based, in part, on another statute establishing procedural details of administrative law.

Graham’s comments did “not address that Congress has another statute that is presumptively applied in agency cases to tell agencies how to exercise discretion,” she argued.

Graham directly addressed child pornographers during the hearing Wednesday.

"If you're listening to my voice today and you're on a computer, looking at child pornography, and you get caught, I hope your sentence is enhanced because the computer and the internet is feeding the beast," he said.

Graham questioned Jackson regarding her cases as it related to child pornographers and suggested she did not consider computer usage as an enhancement.

"To me, putting somebody in jail for using a computer is more of a deterrent than supervising their activity of watching the computer that's just a difference that we have," he said.

Dr. Patrick Jackson, the husband of Jackson, has attended each day of the hearing in a different pair of political-themed socks.

The hearing resumed at 11:38 a.m. ET, with Sen. Lindsey Graham the next to ask questions.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., used his Senate floor speech Wednesday to criticize Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's responses in her confirmation hearings, saying that some of her answers have been "evasive and unclear."

"Judge Jackson is receiving a calm, respectful process, unlike the treatment that Senate Democrats typically inflict on Republican presidents' nominees. But unfortunately, thus far, many of Judge Jackson's responses have been evasive and unclear," McConnell said. "She's declined to address critically important questions and ameliorate real concerns."

McConnell specifically pointed to her responses to questions about whether she supports expanding the size of the court — an issue that Jackson said was a policy matter for Congress to decide on — as she said Tuesday that "judges should not be speaking to political issues."

"Judge Jackson has refused to follow in the footsteps of Ginsburg and Breyer. She refuses to rule out what the radical activists want," McConnell said, adding that Jackson will have "another chance" to follow in their footsteps Wednesday.

The committee recessed for a brief break at 11:17 a.m. ET.

The ears of legal scholars must have perked up during a particular substantive exchange about the nuances that separate nationwide injunctions from rulings that invalidate federal agency rules.

Asked by Grassley whether nationwide injunctions were constitutional — he claimed “you’ve issued them” — Jackson noted that what she has issued aren’t technically nationwide injunctions.

Rather, she explained, Grassley was referring to rulings she’d made that invalidate federal agency rules that are deemed procedurally faulty — which “may have nationwide effects.”

“That’s different than a nationwide injunction” which deals with “a particular case in which something has happened … and the court says, based on what happened in this, I’m going to tell everyone in the country that the defendant can’t operate in this way anymore.”