WATCH: Amy Coney Barrett defends her objectivity and impartiality before the Senate

Amy Coney Barrett gave testimony on the Senate floor Monday in defense of her nomination to sit on the highest court in the US, the Supreme Court. Democrats have complained that Coney Barrett is not an impartial juror, that her beliefs and biases will get in the way of her objectivity.

Coney Barrett made the case for her own objectivity, saying that she took for her inspiration and guidance the words of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

She said "It was the content of Justice Scalia's reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straight forward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results he did not like.

"But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say that we have a government of laws and not of men. 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 political career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective.

"There's a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all consuming, while losing site of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and as a professor. I owe that to my clients, to my students, and to myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life.

"A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgements 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."

Though there is no evidence to suggest that Coney Barrett will be unable to do the job of Justice, she was accused of prematurely having decided that the Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare, is not Constitutional. Senator and Vice Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris went on to declare that Coney Barrett would not uphold the caselaw of Roe v. Wade, workers' rights, LGBTQ rights, and the rights of consumers.

Harris claimed that Coney Barrett's presence on the Supreme Court would put "equal justice under law at stake." Harris said that "our voting rights are at stake. Workers' rights are at stake. Consumer rights are at stake. The right to a safe and legal abortion is at stake, and holding corporations accountable is at stake.

"And again," she said, "there is so much more. So Mr. Chairman, I do believe this hearing a clear attempt to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take health care away from millions of people during a deadly pandemic that has already killed more than 214,000 Americans."

It is Harris' perspective that President Trump should not be the one to put forth a nomination for Supreme Court justice, but that she and her running mate, former Vice President Joe Biden, should be the ones to do that. Harris' may have fears about Coney Barrett's inability to be objective on the Court, but primarily she is likely to be more concerned with wanting to hold the power of nominating the next justice for herself.

Additionally, there are concerns that, in the event of what is widely believed to be a contentious presidential election, the Court would be the only body capable of making the necessary determinations as to which candidate will be victorious. If Coney Barrett is objective, impartial, and true to her word, Harris should have nothing to fear.