1668911361

One danger, to quote Barrett's in-part concurrence (p.66 of the ruling) is:

> The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. [... citations ...] Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.

(I wanted to quote Barrett since she's a Trump-appointed justice.)

Nominees for the supreme court usually have already been judges and written legal opinions. A senator could say "I read the facts of [some past ruling], and I disagree with the ruling, and therefore doubt their competency to be on the supreme court."

Additionally, supreme court nominees are not selected at random--it's no accident that conservative presidents nominate conservative justices and liberal presidents nominate liberal justices. Nominees are selected by the president because the president thinks they'll like the way the nominee would rule in the future.

Qualified judges have a broad spectrum of opinions. When faced with the question, "should _this_ person have a lifetime supreme court appointment," I don't see how a senator could avoid considering how a nominee might rule in the future.

I'm genuinely curious--what should the senate be voting for/against when they confirm a supreme court justice, if not how'd they rule on certain topics?

First of all, this is really really cool! Great job!

Would you consider building in support for color spaces into the software? It looks like the working color space is linear sRGB, but it'd be nice to at least know, and also support other color spaces as well.

Frequently, when I'm rendering from blender, the raw renders will have out-of-gamut colors, which I'll then correct and bring back into sRGB when compositing.