The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday spent roughly five hours hearing opening statements from lawmakers and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as they began considering her nomination to the Supreme Court.

While the outcome of the process is not in doubt -- Republicans have the votes and the political will to report her nomination to the full Senate chamber and tee up a final vote before Election Day -- senators previewed their strategies for handling the controversial confirmation process unfolding as Americans are already voting in states across the country.

_Here are five takeaways from day one

After a little under five hours, the first day of Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing has wrapped.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to return Tuesday at 9 a.m. when Barrett will face several rounds of questioning.

-ABC News’ Trish Turner

Judge Barrett, who has been diligent in keeping her mask on throughout the hearing, except for an occasional sip of water, removed it to be sworn in and to deliver her opening statement. 

“As I said when I was nominated to serve as a justice, I am used to being in a group of nine -- my family," Barrett began. "Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me."

Barrett said she'd bring new perspectives to the bench as she'd be the first mother of school-age children to serve, the first justice from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years and the only sitting justice who didn’t attend Harvard or Yale law schools.

After speaking of her own upbringing and family of nine, Barrett turned to how she interprets the law, following in the textualist and originalist approach of Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked. "It was the content of Justice Scalia's reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: 'A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were,'" she said.

“Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective,” she said. “I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.”

Barrett said a similar principle of separation applies to the role of the courts, a line that will likely pick up traction in questioning from Democrats. 

“The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try,” she said.

Invoking her children, Barrett described the standards she says she sets for herself on ruling in any court, another line Democrats will likely seize on in their arguments for upholding the Affordable Care Act.

“When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law?” she said.

Barrett said she never sought out the Supreme Court nomination and thought carefully before accepting, acknowledging she will never take the place of Justice Ginsburg. 

“I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led,” she said.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., focused her remarks on the rhetoric around Barrett as a woman and mother, questioning why her Democratic colleagues aren’t more supportive of someone she called a “successful female legal superstar.”

“Given your track record, you would think that my colleagues would jump at the opportunity to support a successful female legal superstar, who is highly regarded by both her Democratic and Republican colleagues, and who is a working mom. But as today's increasingly paternalistic and frankly disrespectful arguments have shown, if they had it their way, only certain kinds of women would be allowed into this hearing room," Blackburn said.

“On that note, not so long ago in another hearing they scrutinized your commitment to your Catholic faith and tried to use that as a way to question your competency and your professionalism,” Blackburn said, referring to Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearing to a federal appeals court in 2017, though Barrett's faith has not yet been raised by Democrats in her Supreme Court nomination.

Blackburn, as several of her GOP colleagues before her had done, raised the Justice Kavanaugh hearings and deemed the sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh another effort “to delay and obstruct legitimate constitutionally sound confirmation hearing.”

“Let's not forget it was the Democrats who took an axe to the process in 2018 when they dropped last-minute, unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. We still don't have the full story about their level and manner of coordination with activists and mainstream media outlets, but what we do know is that they turned that confirmation into a circus.”

Graham began his opening statement by reminding his colleagues of the bipartisan Senate support for both the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia nominations.

“I don't know what happened between then and now. I guess we can all take some blame,” Graham said. “But I just want to remind everybody, there was a time, in this country, where someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seen by almost everybody as qualified for the position of being on the Supreme Court.”

After he ticked through a list of Judge Barrett’s qualifications, he addressed the matter of the confirmation vote arising in an election year -- a point of contention with Democrats as Republicans prevented a hearing and vote on former President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016.

“We're confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. What will happen is that my Democratic colleagues will say this has never been done and they're right in this regard, I don't think anybody has been confirmed in an election year past July,” Graham said, before getting to what he called his "bottom line."

“The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally,” he said. “As to Judge Garland, the opening that occurred with the passing of Justice Scalia, was in the early part of an election year. The primary process had just started.”

Graham also said the hearing will likely not change Barrett's path to the court, noting that Republicans have the votes. 

“This is probably not about persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens. All Republicans will vote yes, and all Democrats will vote no. And that will be the way the breakout of the vote, but the hearing is a chance for Democrats to dig deep into her philosophy, appropriately ask her about the law, somehow she would be different, what's on her mind,” he said.