Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tsitrian: Rounds Misreads Constitution on Judges; GOP Obstructionism Helps Trump!

Republican blogger John Tsitrian joins me in criticizing Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds for refusing to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a hearing. Tsitrian says that rejecting any nominee a priori, without reviewing the nominee’s actual qualifications, is antithetical to the values of good South Dakota leaders “who independently examine and analyze their options before coming to conclusions and decisions.”

Tsitrian also catches Senator Rounds misquoting the Constitution:

Senator Rounds comes up even shorter, actually having the gall to misquote the Constitution.  In his statement issued yesterday, Rounds, reciting from a letter sent by Mitch Mconnell to the President, claims that the Constitution says that “the President “may” nominate judges of the Supreme Court.”  This is such an awful misrepresentation of the Constitution that it calls Mike Rounds’ competence into question.  As I noted above, the Constitution is clear.  The President “SHALL” nominate, Senator Rounds.  It doesn’t say he MAY nominate.  Get it?  There’s a difference between “shall” and “may.”  Obama is only following through on his Constitutional mandate.  It would be nice if Senators Rounds and Thune would stand up for themselves and us South Dakotans and do the same [John Tsitrian, “SD Senators Thune And Rounds Are Playing Politics On Obama’s SCOTUS Nominee. Do They Wonder Why The Trump Wrecking Ball Is Demolishing Our GOP?The Constant Commoner, 2016.03.17].

(Rounds comes up even shorter—har har!)

Tsitrian makes an excellent point. May and shall are very different words. Senator Rounds tries to make it sound as if the President’s action is optional and ignorable. The Constitution uses shall to say the action is mandatory. The inclusion of the Senate after that mandating auxiliary verb—the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…”—could indicate that the Senate is under as much obligation as the President to act on nominations. That shall does not require the Senate to rubber-stamp every nominee, but it does suggest that the Senate must go through the process, not just sit on its hands and refuse to consider any nomination. The Constitution most certainly does not say, “The President shall nominate and the Senate shall take a vacation starting in February before the general election.”

Tsitrian tucks into his critique an interesting twist of the argument that the Republican Party has created Donald Trump. I have contended that Donald Trump is simply playing the fiddle that the GOP has strung, appealing to the voodoo economics, xenophobia, and other reason-rejecting Fox News fantasies on which Republicans have campaigned for the last three decades. Yet Tsitrian argues that support for Trump could be a reaction to Republican obstructionism:

Anybody wondering how Donald Trump could suddenly emerge and become the scourge of my Republican Party need only look at the wussiness our SD Senators are showing on the Supreme Court nomination. John Thune and Mike Rounds are the perfect paradigms of the “all talk, no action” catchphrase that practically defines the contempt shown to our leadership by Trump, much to the resounding endorsement that Trump’s campaign has been getting by enough Republican primary voters to put him on track to be the party’s nominee in November [Tsitrian, 2016.03.17].

I’ve suggested Trump voters are a cancer created by Republican free radicals. Tsitrian is suggesting Trump voters are a wave of powerful antibodies aroused by Republican crud and corruption, antibodies that I would contend are running rampant and damaging healthy tissue as well as the disease that provoked their growth. Either way, Thune, Rounds, and their fellow Republicans have put the body politic in peril.


  1. mike from iowa 2016-03-18

    Long,lanky Marlboro Barbie Thune is a good soldier. His standing orders are to stand behind Senate Majority Weasel McCTurtle and look like a bobble-headed dope.
    Mission accomplished. Senator Photo Fluff, WN-SD.

  2. mike from iowa 2016-03-18

    Even the National Electric Code-the bible for electricians goes to great lengths to explain the context of the word “shall” as applied to electrical code.

  3. Joseph Nelson 2016-03-18

    “Shall” is a wonderful word, it gives a normative, right or wrong feel to a situation. It is too bad that the constitution does not invoke a time limit though. The Senate has said that they will act, just not before the next President is in office. Is this dereliction of duty? Not sure, as the Senate leadership for the Republicans is making the decision to wait to action. And what of the constituents? If they do not vote the senators out, isn’t that tacit approval of the Senates methods?

    Go democracy! Where the rules only apply if the majority thinks so!

  4. barry freed 2016-03-18

    You are soooo funny, are you Dennis Miller using a fake name?

    “Barbie”, Yeah!, Thune’s like a girl and “Marlboro” suggests he is so pretty he must be gay because “real” men don’t care about looks, go get him with your genius, his guts are spilled!

    “McCTurtle” you are so creative when you steal jokes. BTW, it was only mildly amusing with John Stewart’s graphics when he told this joke so many years ago. Your version: yawn.

  5. barry freed 2016-03-18

    The atmosphere that empowers Trump is very similar to the environment that gave us Hitler and President Obama shares blame equally with Congress. Maybe more so as he has the bully pulpit and wastes it with polarizing issues that further divide and distract.

    The German Constitutional Assembly of the early 1930’s was in deadlock and the Nation’s economy was stagnant. Their Congress was unable to compromise with each other or bargain with the Chancellor. The People were not happy or impressed with either Branch’s lack of leadership and Hitler, like Trump, spoke to their lack of satisfaction.

    The frustrated Chancellor, like our ineffective President, could not build public consent ( Obama and gun control) so he ruled by edict (Executive Orders) and the stage was set for Hitler. …and that’s how it could happen here.

    Trump has spoken in terms similar to the Reichstag Fire Decree when addressing Muslims and Mexicans. When we resist, President Trump will invoke the Enabling Act, ( Homeland Security 2.0 ).

  6. mike from iowa 2016-03-18

    Barry,you sure enuf decimated me. I will never be in my right mind again.

  7. Rorschach 2016-03-18

    Wrong Barry. The GOP party has long been pandering to the racists, the xenophobes, the bigots. All of the George Wallace voters of 1968 have been gathered together by the GOP party. President Obama is not responsible for this beyond the mere fact that he serves as the first black President, which has been the dog whistle used by the GOP party to solidify the its hate coalition. The GOP party stood either silent or in support as its members accused President Obama of being a foreign born Muslim who isn’t legitimately in office and apologizes for America. They demagogued about the President’s adoption of Romneycare (which is really just the GOP party alternative to Hillary’s healthcare proposal from 1993). And they whipped up all kinds of unreasonable expectations in the angry GOP coalition about repealing Romney/Obamacare – just like they trot out the issue of abortion every even numbered year to stir up the bee’s nest. The GOP party is reaping what it alone sowed. And if Trump is elected it will be because the GOP party did too good a job sowing hate and discontent with government.

  8. Roger Beranek 2016-03-18

    Rorschach is conflating everything together into one pile of streaming poo. And so cannot see how violently hated Trump is by the majority of the GOP, the true tea party, conservatives and libertarians. Trump does gather together the rage of the totally uninformed, the racists and the xenophobic illiterates….That is his version of the Reagan democrats. He is the result of endless obstruction of republicans while they simultaneously betray their constituency. But Barry is right in pointing equally at the political games of the democrats and illegal executive actions of the President in cultivating this. Trump is the result of Washington. Just as Ted Cruz is the true result of the conservative grass roots – not that bloated parody of Charlie from 2 & 1/2 Men.

  9. Rorschach 2016-03-18

    Wrong Roger. Trump is not violently hated by a majority of the GOP party. He’s about to be the GOP party nominee because he is getting more votes and more delegates than anyone else. By the time the GOP party convention comes around Trump will have a majority of delegates, and everyone will be singing Kumbaya, pledging to vote for him because he’s the GOP party nominee and angling for jobs in the Trump administration. It has already started. Go back and refresh your memory by reading Mike Rounds’ statement that the vilest cur would get his vote as long as it joins the GOP party. By August Trump will have the full support of every faction of the GOP party.

  10. mike from iowa 2016-03-18

    Funny how when a wingnut Potus issues executive orders,not a peep out of the pack,but let the black guy in the White House exercise that same option,it is time to impeach the #$@*^&%$!!

    If Obie has been ineffective,I’d like to see a wingnuts idea of effective. Bwaa Haaa!

  11. Don Coyote 2016-03-19

    @cah: “The Constitution uses shall to say the action is mandatory. The inclusion of the Senate after that mandating auxiliary verb—the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…”—could indicate that the Senate is under as much obligation as the President to act on nominations. That shall does not require the Senate to rubber-stamp every nominee, but it does suggest that the Senate must go through the process, not just sit on its hands and refuse to consider any nomination.”

    Nonsense. Even a cursory reading of Federalist #76 and Madison’s “Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention” reveals that the word “shall” is to codify the Separation of Powers by bestowing upon the President the plenary power of “nomination” and “appointment” while the Senate is given the plenary power of consenting to the nomination allowing the President to appoint justices, ambassadors, cabinet officials, et al. It certainly doesn’t mandate or suggest that an nomination be made or to be even heard or acted upon. Both act independent of the other and just as the President is under no requirement to explain his nominations, the Senate is under no obligation to explain a rejection of a nominee either a priori or a posteriori.

  12. Roger Beranek 2016-03-19

    No. He won’t. If he gains the nomination he will draw some just to vote against hilarity, and most of the Washington sycophants that were always spineless weasels anyway. But #neverTrump is real and great numbers will stay home. Trump will continue to struggle to gain more than the meager plurality than has enabled him to win in an utterly fractured race . There is a strong likelihood that Cruz wins in Arizona and Utah, and if Kasich cones in third again in Wisconsin his existence well be irrelevant even if he stays in the race. And trump loses in that two man race. So there is hope. If it is Trump, it is the end of the Republican party, i think with a loss as bad as Mondale, dragging Congress with him over to Democratic control. Or an improbable win and an utter nightmare of a presidency, driving a fragile country over the edge into multiple crisise that will make even the worst Obama hater nostalgic for 2008.
    If Rounds said that he would vote for anyone with an R, he is the vilest curr, and I would never vote for him.

  13. John Tsitrian 2016-03-19

    Re: the word “shall” (With thanks to Wikipedia) Of The Federalist Papers John Marshall said of them in an opinion: “the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained.” Madison himself, in an 1821 letter noted that “the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses.” My view? The Federalist Papers are of seminal and immense importance as reference points, but aren’t the final authority on the meanings of the words in the Constitution, as understood by Madison himself. Given our representatives’ public displays of commitment to their faith, I suggest they go back to the Old Testament and consider the meaning of “shall” in the context of the Old Testament, in which the word is used as a command , as in commandments. “Thou shall not . . .” I believe in Article 2 of the Constitution it is used as a directive, not an explanation of his powers, and even if it were the latter, that Obama chooses to assert those powers is consistent with his Constitutional mandates. Obstructionists in the Senate are only exposing their nature and greasing the skids for a man of action, like Trump, who exposes them for the men of words that they are. I can’t stand Trump, but his rise to prominence is crystallized by this fight over the SCOTUS nominee.

  14. barry freed 2016-03-19

    Wrong Rorschach, Obama is ineffective. He pushed the ACA and now many more Americans have access to health care, but he has done nothing since. Congress won’t cooperate? Bring the argument to the People. CNN et al will give him unlimited time as often as he wants. He bleats false statistics about guns, but still can’t get a following. Had he used that energy to educate about prescription drug prices and monopolies, an actual problem for the majority of people in the U.S., the voters would have put pressure on Congress to address the problem. Instead, hedge fund speculators are giving us $700 each pill prices and the corrupt Congress and ineffective President say nothing, do nothing, together.
    If Obama were effective, he would publicly shame both parties of Congress and motivate The People to motivate Congress into doing The People’s bidding. Turned against a do-nothing Congress, no amount of campaign funds could get the voters to re-elect them. Instead, following Reagan’s 11th Commandment and yielding to his frustration, he resorts to Rule by Edict with vague and unconstitutional EO’s.
    Once again, uncompromising Congress, politicized Supreme Court, ineffective POTUS, and rule by Executive Order: get ready for President Trump and the trains running on time. He even looks like Mussolini with the puckered lips thing he does.

  15. mike from iowa 2016-03-19

    barry-every attempt by Dems to negotiate lower prescription grug prices has been blocked by big pharma wingnuts. They even went so far as to stop people buying drugs over the internet on the specious claims that drugs made overseas are not safe. Where do you think most of out drugs are made?

    If Obama is known for nothing more than making wingnuts bat-shit crazy,he will have accomplished more than the last five,war criminal wingnuts in office.

  16. John Wrede 2016-03-19

    Surely, in all of the annals of government documentary, there is either rule of law or patented policy that asserts that Congress has a fiduciary duty to conduct the public’s business in a timely manner. I can’t imagine that someplace, particularly in Supreme Court Case law archives, there isn’t language or dictum that suggests that government or congressional foot dragging, stalling and barricading processes is unacceptable and representative of malfeasance of office. While Wikipedia is likely not the best source of review on the topic, I post the following which would seem to provide some substance in support of the notion that McConnell and the rest of the obstructionists in the Senate can be held accountable for malfeasance in office. What do they say when they take the oath of office? There may not be a legal path to force these nere do wells to do the job they were elected to do but the suggestions below are certainly adequate rhetoric for use in political campaigning against these plastic, disingenuous, wrong headed public servants. The second paragraph below is particularly noteworth!
    The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
    “ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do. ”
    — Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).

    The court then went on to use yet another definition, “malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance.”

    Nevertheless, a few “elements” can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about “whose official” duties.

    In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is “ignorance, inattention, or malice”, which implies no intent or knowledge is required.

  17. mike from iowa 2016-03-19

    Seems like malfeasance went out the window recently when illegally seized evidence was allowed to be admitted in court by the activist Scotus.

    I don’t remember which case,but I could prolly find it if necessary.

  18. Roger Beranek 2016-03-19

    I agree that there should be some legal expectation for Congress to fulfill the duty to advise and consent to nominations. But there isn’t, and there won’t be since the party structures have no interest in giving up any powers they have to obstruct things or enact things in disguised and deceitful ways. It doesn’t really matter to them if the word shall is in the Constitution, it only matters to them how well they can bloviate to their partisan constituents while playing the games of political power behind the scenes.

    The comments of John Marshall make sense but have little significance, since the federalist papers were arguments with different opinions, not a consistent unified opinion. It would be impossible logically use these contradictory opinions of two founders to circumscribe understanding the constitution based on an idea of original intent. Instead, the words of the constitution must be understood by themselves, with reference only to the linguistics of the time they are written, not to the opinions of the federalist papers or any founder. Thus “shall” is mandatory and a binding expectation, but it was left without defining the reasonable time it must be done within. A functional Congress would pass legislation to define that, but hacks like McConnell, Graham and Pelosi would never allow that. Or consider it.

    Also, repeated use of the word “wingnut” does not imply great intellect. It places you on par with repeated use of the word “huge”

  19. grudznick 2016-03-19

    I agree with my friend Lar.

  20. Roger Beranek 2016-03-19

    Congratulations Larry, someone agrees with you. Truth isn’t elected though, so you are still just as wrong. I’d rather be labelled that I hate the earth than advocate for destructive policies you falsely justify by a love for it.

  21. Roger Beranek 2016-03-19

    Keen insight and random ad hominem. Nice. Nobody would be surprised if a unified GOP obstructed a rich white Democratic President either.

  22. Rorschach 2016-03-19

    I trust that as soon as Hillary beats Donald the same GOP party senators who won’t take up President Obama’s nominee will immediately defer to the will of the voters and call for a prompt up or down vote on the liberal that Hillary will nominate. That is assuming, probably erroneously, that those GOP party senators will have any say in the matter after the election.

  23. Rorschach 2016-03-19

    After Hillary beats Donald, I do wonder how many GOP party senators will decide that there are too many justices on the Supreme Court and that none at all should be appointed until the number of justices falls below 7. That seems like their next excuse for thwarting a Democratic President. If the GOP party fails to win the presidency, things will only continue to get more and more absurd from the self-professed constitution-loving party.

  24. mike from iowa 2016-03-19

    Also, repeated use of the word “wingnut” does not imply great intellect.

    I wasn’t aware anyone was accusing wingnuts of having intellect.

  25. Roger Beranek 2016-03-19

    The reason we live in a free country is because we recognized at out creation that “The will of the voters” is always secondary to the rights of the individual. I do not kneel at the altar of mob rule by dismissing the will of the minority that lose an election. Whomever wins the election, I will continue to expect all of our representatives to protect and defend the constitution, including blocking, as best they can, anyone who is antithetical to those principles from gaining a seat on the highest court. I trust neither Trump, nor Hillary, to choose anyone for that position. I also do not trust republicans on the judiciary. If Cruz fails to gain the nomination, I only hope they pass Merrick asap, as the only option. That would not be an unreasonable delay, and fulfills what I see as their constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

  26. grudznick 2016-03-19

    Who are your “us”, Mr. kurtz? Has the new, contrite Lar renewed his vows to the Democrat party after a behind the doors tongue lashing? I think you will help them immensely this election cycle.

  27. mike from iowa 2016-03-19

    If right wing nut jobs believed in science and stem cell research,they could have already had Scalia’s clone replacement ready to replace Scalia. They could have switched bodies in Texas and no one would have been the wiser,but, NOOOOOOO! They aren’t smart enough to admit the advantages of science over their hocus-pocus, jiggery-pokery. Too bad,so sad. Nothing anywhere says disgruntled coyotes from the lunatic fringe get to decide that the Scotus has to bend way to the right.

    If Dems were this obstinate,wingnuts would have been screaming for Dems to be tried for treason and being big poops.

  28. grudznick 2016-03-19

    Contrite indeed. Contrite and civil of tongue. It suits me well.

  29. leslie 2016-03-19

    roger b.-destructive policies for who? got any specific policies in mind? also, you call “hope” cruz taking the nomination. then we’ll have a dangerous race. cruz has dangerous brains. trump is nothing more than a dan quail, a George bush, a sara palin or a Donald trump. boy if u think cruz is grass roots conservative, there is trouble in the family. the dude is downright sinister. another dick cheney.

    and, “political games of the democrats and illegal executive actions of the President in cultivating this” is tripe. oh come on. dems are nothing like you. filibuster. obstruction. 57 votes to repeal Obamacare. better examples, Roger B?? I can’t wait. tell me a substantive illegality cultivating chaos the right wing has single handedly wrought in its death spiral (I hope beyond hope). I can think of maybe one, but it likely is not substantive.

    “left without defining the reasonable time it must be done”–no. judges interpret the nomination by a president “shall” receive advice and consent. if after the president’s term, shall really wouldn’t mean shall. shall means shall. sorry. judicial interpretation 101. nice loophole try though:)

    oh, pelosi’s no hack. that grama has spine.

    “It doesn’t really matter to them if the word shall is in the Constitution”. oh really? judicial orders are hardly advisory.

    barry-trump’s “trains” certainly failed to be timely in atlantic city. 3 or 4 corporate bankruptcies after promising the moon. a questionable cash loans of millions by “daddy”. the guy is a goat.

    who is this guy, mfi, a rwnj??:)

    damn, gottagoby

  30. Roger Beranek 2016-03-20

    Leslie, judicial orders are not advisory, but there exist no judicial order demanding a timely review in the nomination process. Do not misunderstand or mischaracterize my point there though, “It doesnt matter to them…” because they suck and nothing exists with teeth to make them care. I am not saying I think that it’s RIGHT for these people to ignore a nominee until the president goes away. I only say that nothing currently exists to FORCE them to advise and consent. I would love it if they would fix that so we wouldn’t go through this manipulation every time a significant nomination is made. However I dont think the integrity exists on either side to pass something that would stop it: ie ‘any cabinet lever or SCOTUS nomination that has not been reviewed in 3 months will automaticly be sent on to the full senate’

    Pelosi has spine about her beliefs, so not a complete hack, just not about her catholic beliefs. She also was being disingenuous in her full-on devotion to the ACA, to the point of claiming we should pass the bill, and figure out what it said later.

    One substantive illegality would be the neglect in following previously passed legislation to construct a fence on the southern border. Very similar to the judiciary committe game, the democrat administration’s foot-dragging failure to fulfill that duty significantly contributed to the existence of a Trump.

    I mentioned destructive policies in context with Larry bawling earth-hater at me, so I’ll reference a policy destructive to people made in the context of their great lurv of the planet.
    Now if you don’t think this applies because conservative earth-hate is focused on polluting the planet with greenhouse gas, I can give you an example of destruction there too:

    The fact that you find Cruz sinister warms my heart.

  31. mike from iowa 2016-03-20

    Fence on the Southern border had open breaches in Texas. Wingnut Hunt family wouldn’t give access to build on their billionaire property. Other places had similar problems along fancy golf courses,etc.

    Wingnuts control/ed the purse strings for funding of building the fence. Don’t place the blame on Libs alone.

  32. mike from iowa 2016-03-20

    One would think with all the oil spills,no spraying of DDT would be necessary to quell mosquito invasions. 17 people on Wisconsin have died from another mosquito born illness that doesn’t affect humans with healthy immune systems. I’m guessing use of DDT would cause more human immune systems to malfunction and, if memory serves, wasn’t DDT blamed for decline in Bald Eagles?

  33. Roger Beranek 2016-03-20

    That is one panel’s opinion from the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The impact of their concerns for increased health risks is not zero, but it might as well be when compared to the impacts of malaria worldwide. I found this article both more informative in the details, and less biased against ddt for environmental impacts.

  34. Roger Beranek 2016-03-20

    Yes, decline in predator birds due to eggs with thinner shells. That seems worth hundreds of thousands dying of malaria every year? I know I would personally accept the risks to save millions of people.

  35. Roger Beranek 2016-03-20

    Leslie asked about the destructive policies of non-earth-haters. The only way it relates is in how that obstruction is warranted.

  36. barry freed 2016-03-21

    Like most AP articles, they hide the meat in the last paragraph or two, that nobody reads:

    “Republicans in Congress have long voted with the pharmaceutical lobby’s interests. Likewise, Democrats from industry strongholds like New Jersey and California often side with drugmakers.”

    Were the AP actually Journalists, they would include the figures of how much money House Speakers from both parties have taken from Pharma Lobbyists. Might shed light on why these issues are not brought up in the House.

    The point is: Obama ignores the the Nation’s poor and elderly who are dying because they can’t afford the artificially inflated drug prices; a situation his Party shares blame for, yet he weeps croc tears for gang bangers killing each other. This reveals his ineffectiveness and lack of good judgement. Maybe he should not be appointing a Justice. The mind swoons considering who President Trump will appoint.

    Obama suckered me, I’ll admit it. I voted for him in ’08, but I have lost all belief that he values the Constitution. Now that I think of it, I have never read one of his former law students singing his praise as a classroom teacher.

  37. barry freed 2016-03-21

    The bird eggs are the same issue as every other. Bought and paid for lawmakers.

    There is a chemical that was discovered in 1908. It is natural, you can drink it, you can put it on your tomato plants then eat the fruit with no ill effects. Mosquito larvae develop no immunity to it and it is cheap. But this chemical has no lobbyists as Monsanto does, so where do our tax dollars go?

    For you gardeners and earth lovers out there, it is BHT. The only caution is: it also kills good bugs in their larva stage. It warms the heart to see web worms fall from a fruit tree.

  38. mike from iowa 2016-03-21

    Diesel fuel takes care of web worms. So does fire. From thegoodhuman website-

    It has been the subject of many studies, which have been contradictory in their findings. The result is that we are left with confusion over whether consuming and applying products containing BHT is safe. This confusion is nothing new, as we can see from the following excerpt from Business Week magazine back in 1995.

    Several additives are suspected carcinogens. Take butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Food companies use these similar chemical substances to prevent spoilage in foods with oil or shortening and to preserve many breakfast cereals (from Total to Quaker Instant Oatmeal), enriched rice products, and dried soups. Repeated studies have shown that BHA and BHT increase the risk of cancer as well as accumulate in body tissue, cause liver enlargement, and retard the rate of DNA synthesis and thus, cell development. However, one study, released in 1994, suggests these same additives may actually retard cancer development because of their antioxidant properties.
    There is actually more than one study suggesting anti-carcinogenic effects of BHT. This article aims to look at the conflicting conclusions to help individuals to make informed choices regarding purchasing these products.

  39. mike from iowa 2016-03-21

    “Republicans in Congress have long voted with the pharmaceutical lobby’s interests. Likewise, Democrats from industry strongholds like New Jersey and California often side with drugmakers.”

    Wingnuts have long voted with pharma-my point.

    Democrats from industry strongholds often vote- what is ths,equivalency?

  40. mike from iowa 2016-03-21

    Roger B-why not encourage more oil spills in interior waters. The oil will surely prevent mosquito larva from breathing air and what the hell,who cares if people get sick from oil covered water. At least,we can get rid of mosquitoes,whether they carry malaria or not.Clean up afterwards is a snap,right?

  41. leslie 2016-03-21

    rb, u mean regulation, not obstruction.

    barry: “bought and paid for”;…i’d happily vote for Bernie if he is our candidate regardless of his vermont constituency majority position on the 2nd amendment. 4% of the nation supports NRA. I doubt Bernie will mistreat the national majority if elected, by not reasonably regulating guns.

  42. leslie 2016-03-22

    roger b., hypothetically, I could find judicial precedent in about 4 minutes, or in a nicely paid trip to the library, write it up and show you most courts would interpret the constitution to mean what it says, that the senate shall advise and consent without delaying past the president’s reasonably remaining term to fill the vital role of a SCOTUS judge. courts don’t kindly allow obfuscation and obstruction of judicial and constitutional process such weighty matters hinge on. except for political kangaroo judicial appointments like scalia et al who decided Bush v. Gore.

    Mereck is a qualified, non-partisan nominee justice with a cleqar track record made in good faith by a supremely competent, law trained president, attempting, once again, after 7 years, of dealing with a bunch of republican criminal obstructionists taking advantage of their taxpayer employers for the “greatest good” of more photo ops for our snr. senator and his side-kick, complicit crony, former governor/insurance agent who thinks shutting down various government agencies is his mission from god, and…psfft!

Comments are closed.