Newsday reports that Wendy Long, a former law clerk to tenther Justice Clarence Thomas who is best known for spearheading several inaccurate race baiting attacks against Justice Sonia Sotomayor during Sotomayor’s confirmation process, is considering running for Senate against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) this year. Long, however, is not simply significant for her racially-questionable attacks on Sotomayor. She would also be the latest GOP Senate candidate to bring both genuine legal credentials and a deeply radical tenther vision of the Constitution to the race.

In 2008, Long penned a book review which not only slams the late Justice Thurgood Marshall’s rather banal statement that the original Constitution was a flawed document because it allowed slavery and discrimination, it also embraces one of her former boss’ most radical views — praising an opinion by Justice Thomas which would lead to everything from national child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters being declared unconstitutional. Sadly, such bizarre distortions of the Constitution has become increasingly common on the campaign trial in the post-Tea Party era:

• Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, shares Long and Thomas’ radical belief that national child labor laws violate the Constitution. He’s also claimed that Medicare and Social Security — among many other things — are unconstitutional.
• Ted Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general and law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, proposed using an unconstitutional backdoor method to get states to nullify the Affordable Care Act and he co-authored a white paper advocating a reading of the Constitution that would eliminate Medicaid and most federal education funding.
• Joe Miller, a Yale law grad and former federal magistrate judge, ran for Senate in 2010 on the platform that pretty much everything is unconstitutional — including Social Security, Medicare, the federal minimum wage, and unemployment benefits.

There is hardly an outpouring of support for this kind of candidate. Long is far from the favorite to win in a solid blue state like New York, especially after Gillibrand so recently spanked her GOP opponent during a cycle that otherwise favored Republicans. Likewise, the six outspoken tenther candidates who ran for Senate in 2010 massively underperformed the remainder of the GOP. Miller lost to a candidate whose name wasn’t even on the ballot. And Lee won in large part because he was able to manipulate the Utah’ GOP’s undemocratic method of choosing Senate candidates in order to get his name on the ballot in this blood red state.

Nevertheless, the emergence of multiple candidates who combine genuine legal credentials with a desire to declare nearly the entire Twentieth Century unconstitutional is a troubling trend, and one that could have long term consequences for American policy. Few Democratic officials have the same comfort discussing constitutional matters as a Mike Lee or a Wendy Long, even if Lee and Long are consistently wrong about how they read the Constitution. If this trend continues, it will mean that voters will receive a continuous diet of constitutional garbage with little constitutional reality presented to them as an alternative. And if only one side makes its case to the electorate, it won’t be long before the inmates take over the asylum.

Last week, Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threatened to exact revenge for President Obama’s decision to recess appoint four officials by engaging in a scorched earth campaign of obstruction against each of the president’s nominees. In an apparent effort to cede what little remaining credibility he has on this issue, he then followed this threat up yesterday by comparing Obama’s decision to appoint four consumer and worker protection officials to an unprovoked attack that killed 2,402 Americans and thrust America into the final four years of a bitter world war:

Lee’s phrase “a day that will live on in infamy,” is nearly a word for word transcription of the opening line in President Franklin Roosevelt’s speech seeking a declaration of war following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nearly 420,000 Americans would die in that war, and we were in many ways the lucky ones. Over 2.5% percent of the world’s population died in World War II — totaling more than 60 million lives lost.

It’s common, of course, to express outrage at this point in a blog post highlighting such a bizarre and offensive comparison as Lee’s analogy between Obama’s wholly legal appointments and America’s forced entry into an horrific war. And Lee’s comment is unquestionably outrageous. Nevertheless, the most appropriate emotion is pity. Pity for this angry little man who can’t tell the difference between an constitutional maneuver he disagrees with and a global calamity that ended only after humankind birthed and detonated a weapon that continues to threaten our very existence seven decades later.

Ultimately, however, far more pity should be reserved for the people of Utah who, for at least five more years, must be represented in the Senate by a man who confuses personal disagreements with great human tragedies, who confuses our Constitution with a mandate to destroy Social Security and Medicare, and who openly admits to using sabotage and extortion in order to push his dangerous agenda.

Last week, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) announced he would take revenge for President Obama’s decision to make four recess appointments by engaging in a scorched earth campaign of obstruction against the president’s nominees. In his weekly address this weekend, Obama punched back:

Just two days ago, a senator from Utah promised to obstruct every single American I appoint to a judgeship or public service position – unless I fire the consumer watchdog I put in place to protect the American people from financial schemes or malpractice.

For the most part, it’s not that this senator thinks these nominees are unqualified. In fact, all of the judicial nominees being blocked have bipartisan support. And almost 90 percent have unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee.

Instead, one of his aides told reporters that the senator plans to, and I’m quoting here, “Delay and slow the process in order to get the President’s attention.”

Watch it:

Lee is, in many ways, the perfect foil to the president. While Obama wants nothing more than for the Senate to consider his nominees in a timely manner and give them an up or down vote, Lee’s short political career is marred by escalating displays of extremism and embarrassing overreach. A sample of Lee’s beliefs include:

• Child Labor Laws Are Unconstitutional: In 2010, Lee delivered a lengthy lecture on the Constitution where he praised a discarded 1918 Supreme Court decision holding that federal child labor laws violate the Constitution. In Lee’s words “This may sound harsh, but [the Constitution] was designed to be that way. It was designed to be a little bit harsh.”
• And So Is Social Security and Medicare: In the same lecture, Lee claimed that any federal program that provides health care or a retirement plan also violates the Constitution.
• And So Is Nearly Everything Else: Other things Mike Lee believes are unconstitutional include FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, and income assistance for the poor.
• The Constitution Needs A Depression Amendment: Lee is the lead sponsor of a radical constitutional amendment that would force such swift and draconian spending cuts that it would “throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent.”
• Extorting The American People: In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Lee admitted that he was engaged in a campaign of extortion to force Congress to enact his radical constitutional amendment during last year’s default crisis. Lee agreed that he wants the Senate “by a two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or he want[s] the house to come down.”
• Corporate Slush Funds For Politicians: Lee also attempted to take Citizens United to an unheard of level by creating his own slush fund, bankrolled by unlimited corporate and other donations, which Lee could then dole out to other politicians who support his radical agenda.
• Sabotage: And, of course, let’s not forget that the entire reason why President Obama needed to make his recent recess appointments is because senators like Mike Lee were filibustering Obama’s nominees to sabotage entire agencies. In Lee’s words, “I feel it is my duty to oppose [CFPB Director Richard Cordray's] confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of CFPB itself.”

Following up on Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) threat to lash out at President Obama’s decision to make four necessary recess appointments by seeking revenge against Obama’s other nominees, Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) used a Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday to make a similar threat:

Given this President’s blatant and egregious disregard both for proper constitutional procedures and the Senate’s unquestioned role in such appointments, I find myself duty-bound to resist the consideration and approval of additional nominations until the President takes steps to remedy the situation. Regardless of the precise course I choose to pursue, the President certainly will not continue to enjoy my nearly complete cooperation, unless and until he rescinds his unconstitutional recess appointments.

Watch it:

At the outset, it’s important to note that there is no one in America who has less stature to claim that someone else shows “blatant and egregious disregard” for the Constitution than Mike Lee. Lee believes that federal child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. Taking Mike Lee’s advice on constitutional law is a bit like taking John “Bluto” Blutarsky’s advice on American military history.

Moreover, Lee’s suggestion that he has shown “nearly complete cooperation” in the past is laughably false. Lee openly admits that he filibustered Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray’s nomination because he wanted to sabotage that consumer protection agency, and he filibustered an exceptional nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit because she had the audacity to do her job properly when she was Solicitor General of New York.

Fortunately, the Lee/Grassley plan for scorched earth retaliation does not seem to be resonating with much of the Senate GOP. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently said that he “would be surprised if you see mass reprisals,” and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) — who has his own history of aggressive obstructionism — waived off Lee and Grassley’s angry tactic because he doesn’t think it will be a “particularly effective strategy.”

Nevertheless, the Senate’s broken rules enable just one senator to work a great deal of obstructionist mischief even if the other 99 vehemently disagree. Indeed, the fact that the current rules allow someone with the poor judgment of a Mike Lee to work such havoc shows why Obama was right to call for filibuster reform in his State of the Union speech this week. America can ill afford to have its ability to have a functioning government rest in the hands of the Senate’s most radical member.

Earlier today, 53 percent of the Senate voted to move forward with Richard Cordray’s nomination to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — depriving him of the supermajority he needs in order to be confirmed. One of the senators joining this filibuster, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), was uncharacteristically candid about why he helped build this wall of obstruction — he simply wants to sabotage the agency:

I have met Mr. Cordray, and my decision to oppose his confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his qualifications. Rather, I feel it is my duty to oppose his confirmation as part of my opposition to the creation of CFPB itself. [...] Confirming any director for this bureau would be tantamount to agreeing that we need a uniquely powerful super-agency that is not even designed to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. Until the CFPB is reformed, I will not support it in any way.

Simply put, this is nothing less than a direct assault on the rule of law. The CFPB was created by an Act of Congress and can only be repealed or modified by an Act of Congress. By his own admission, Lee’s filibuster is an attempt to make an end run around the Constitution’s legitimate lawmaking process.

But, of course, this filibuster is also just one more example of the Tea Party senator’s nihilistic approach to governance. Lee believes that federal child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. He not only sponsored a radical constitutional amendment that would force the United States to adopt Tea Party fiscal policy forever, he then openly admitted that he was using last summer’s debt ceiling crisis to extort the rest of the Congress into passing his amendment.

Fortunately, President Obama does not need to allow Lee’s nihilism to shut down an essential check on Wall Street’s excesses. When the Senate adjourns for the year, Obama should immediately invoke the Roosevelt Precedent and recess appoint Cordary.

Last year, Sen. Mike “A Noun, A Verb, and Unconstitutional” Lee (R-UT) upset longtime Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) in the Utah GOP’s arcane candidate selection process — allowing the Tea Party to elevate someone to the Senate who believes that everything from Medicare to Social Security to child labor laws somehow violate the Constitution. Since then, Utah’s senior Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) has tripped over himself to pretend that he is just as radical as young Sen. Lee.

Alas, all of Hatch’s extremist posturing may be for naught, as the Tea Party has found someone who shares their apparent policy goal of ensuring that people who can’t afford health care are left to fend for themselves:

During a recent media blitz in Washington, D.C., Dan Liljenquist, a state senator from Utah, went after Sen. Orrin Hatch, arguing he has done more than any other Republican to promote nationalized health care. [...] The skirmish is the first between these potential 2012 opponents. Liljenquist, a Republican, says he won’t make an official decision until early next year, but he has prepared for a possible run for Hatch’s seat. [...]

[Liljenquist] argued that Hatch is not committed to returning power to the states, focusing on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program that Hatch spearheaded in 1997. That program, which pays for health coverage for poor children, has come under fire from tea party Republicans who see it as a step toward a national takeover of health insurance. Liljenquist went as far as to call it “unconstitutional.”

Liljenquist’s suggestion that the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is unconstitutional is absurd. SCHIP works by providing funds to states to help them pay for health insurance for children. Because the Constitution allows the federal government “to lay and collect taxes” and to use those revenues to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States,” there is simply no doubt that it can spend money on providing health care to vulnerable young people.

Moreover, other essential health care programs — such as Medicare and Medicaid — stand on similar constitutional footing as SCHIP. So if Liljenquist thinks one of these programs is unconstitutional, it is likely that he believes that we must eliminate all three.

In other words, if Liljenquist succeeds in taking Hatch’s Senate seat, Utah could become the only state in the union to have its entire Senate delegation believe that the Constitution requires millions of children, low-income Americans and seniors to be cast out into the cold with no meaningful access to health care.