Earlier today, the National Review’s mailing list distributed an email (which can also be found here) signed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), which called for Congress to pass a law effectively rendering a binding Supreme Court decision a nullity:

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it. . . . Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

It’s not entirely clear why Paul believes Congress has this power, and the email he signed does not provide a fully developed legal argument making the case for such an law. Instead, it appears to argue that Congress can simply grant full legal “personhood” status to fetuses under the 14th Amendment because Roe left open “the difficult question of when life begins.” This is not a correct reading of the Roe decision, however. The Roe opinion is unambiguous that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

Whether one agrees with this opinion or not, Congress does not have the power to flout the Supreme Court’s constitutional decisions simply because it does not like them. As ThinkProgress explained when a similar proposal was floated last year by Princeton Professor Robert George, “[i]n City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court held that Congress is not allowed to simply declare that the 14th Amendment means whatever they want it to mean and then use that declaration to pass enforcement legislation — Congress can only pass laws enforcing existing 14th Amendment rights.”

Just as importantly, there is something very bizarre about a conservative stalwart like Rand Paul insisting that obeying the Supreme Court is optional at exactly the same time conservatives are trying to impose much of their policy agenda upon the nation by judicial decree. Presumably, Paul would be outraged if President Obama simply refused to obey a Supreme Court decision striking down part of the Affordable Care Act or if elections officials were to ban corporations from trying to buy elections despite the justices’ decision in Citizens United. Yet, if Roe v. Wade is as optional as Paul appears to think that it is, than there is no reason why Obama should feel obliged to obey conservatives’ pet decisions either.

Speaking at a Christian conservative group in Iowa on Friday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made an anti-gay joke at President Obama’s expense: “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.” On Face the Nation this morning, anti-gay activist Tony Perkins was asked to comment on Paul’s joke, and he practically leaped out of his skin to distance himself from the senator:

I don’t think it’s a laughing matter. I don’t think this is something we should joke about. Ah, we’re talking about individuals who feel very strongly one way or the other, and I think we should be civil, respectful, allowing all sides to have the debate…but I think this is not something to laugh about, to poke fun of other people about.

Watch it:

On Meet the Press, RNC Chair Reince Priebus similarly refused to defend Paul. “I don’t know what he meant by that,” Priebus said.

This is hardly the first time Sen. Paul found himself so far out of a limb that even leading conservatives had to distance themselves from him. Last year, Paul came out against the nearly fifty year-old federal ban on whites-only lunch counters — claiming that permitting racial segregation is the “hard part of believing in freedom.” Even Tea Party Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) disagreed with Paul on this point.

Nevertheless, it is significant that Perkins, of all people, felt the need to distance himself from Paul on a gay rights issue. Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council which was labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He’s blamed gay people for everything from undermining “military security,” to shrinking the economy, to actively trying to “recruit” high school students into a gay “lifestyle.” He once accused a jelly bean manufacturer of “sexualizing candy,” and he’s praised discredited “ex-gay” therapies for rescuing a woman from gay “bondage.”

And even that guy thinks Mr. Paul’s a little too disrespectful towards gay people and their allies.

Shortly after President Obama announced that he would recess appoint four officials in order to prevent Senate Republicans from effectively shutting down two key agencies through a filibuster, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) compared Obama’s actions to Pearl Harbor and promised a scorched earth campaign of obstruction against every one of the president’s nominees.

Fortunately, even most of Lee’s fellow Republican senators deemed Lee’s tantrum to be overblown. Last February, when the Senate voted to confirm Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo shortly after Lee announced his obstruction campaign, only five of Lee’s colleagues joined him. Yesterday, the Senate voted to confirm Judge Stephanie Thacker to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Lee was only able to convince Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) to join him in opposition. Even Tea Party stalwarts like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who joined Lee in opposing Bencivengo, broke with Lee on Thacker.

As Travis Waldron explained this morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) put a hold on a transportation bill that has broad bipartisan support in an attempt to force the Senate to enact his preferred policy on aid to Egypt. Although Paul’s tactic cannot prevent the widely supported bill from passing if Majority Leader Reid Harry (D-NV) decides to force the issue, Paul’s recalcitrance can force the Senate to waste up to 30 hours of floor time before it can receive a final vote.

Unfortunately, Paul is not just restricting this obstructionist tactic to one bill:

Paul is holding up confirmation of one of President Obama’s judicial nominees, Adalberto Jose Jordan, to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The nomination cleared a procedural hurdle with an overwhelming 89-5 vote Monday evening.

But Paul is forcing the Senate to conduct at least some of the remaining 30 hours of required debate on the judicial nominee. Often, that time requirement is waived by senators when an issue gains wide bipartisan support.

Thirty hours does not sound like a lot, until you multiply it across all the other business that the Senate needs to consider. Indeed, if Paul can force 30 hours of delay every time the Senate tries to confirm a single nominee, he can prevent Congress from completing any other business for years:

This is why the Senate’s broken rules cannot coexist with the Tea Party. So long as there are just a handful of senators willing to engage in maximal delay over petty disagreements, each individual member of the Senate cannot enjoy this power to gum up the entire body.