Even as ripples subside after the spectacular weekend swan dive of Van Jones—the Obama administration’s radical (and radically under-vetted) former “green czar”—hearings for another controversial White House pick are on the visible horizon. When the Senate reconvenes, the nomination of Dr. David Michaels for assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) will be on the agenda of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Unlike Jones--whose appointment could be made by presidential fiat—Michaels will have to be confirmed by the Senate. Because of Michaels’ record of anti-business activism and his outspoken views about the need for stringent restrictions on the possession of firearms, the Washington Times minced no words in its Sunday editorial: “The Senate should reject Mr. Michael's nomination.”

Although currently an epidemiologist and research professor with George Washington University--where he has overseen studies labeling compounds and substances toxic and thus opening the floodgates of litigation--Michaels’ cause célèbre has been his vehement opposition to the 1993 US Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. The Daubert decision affirmed the right of judges to hold hearings to judge the merits of scientific evidence prior to allowing slick expert testimony to swing the emotions of a jury. This ruling has been a safeguard for both plaintiffs and defendants against the introduction of flashy pseudo-science into cases that carry penalties in the millions and billions of dollars. It is a safeguard that Michaels would like to see demolished and with the power of a subcabinet level position his influence over administrative functions at OSHA could create “workarounds” to accomplish it extra-legally.

Curiously, although Michaels is a tireless worker in the effort to clear a path for junk science into the courtroom, solid science receives the smart end of his boot. In his crusade against the lightweight, high performance plastic Bisphenol A (BPA), commonly used in water bottles, Michaels has chosen to ignore a mountain of scientific evidence that exists showing that BPA poses no health risks. Despite the evidence, Michaels has loudly added his voice to the crowd of environmentalists and liberal activists who use the easy-to-remember compound to churn up frustration and support from impressionable citizens.

The Senate could also inquire about his work as the Assistant Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration, when he parlayed his purpose of protecting the environment around the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities into creating a thicket of legal actions that may have had negative effects on national security. Or they could question his intentions to use OSHA’s wide regulatory scope to impose far-reaching restrictions of firearms ownership and possession. Perhaps his ties to super-liberal mega-billionaire George Soros should be explored. Whatever direction the questioning takes, it should be vigorous, thorough, and leave no stone unturned.

OSHA is an agency that already has a well-earned reputation for abusing its authority and reaching beyond its stated purpose. Add one zealot and it easily becomes an oppressive entity with immense power over all American businesses, large and small. At a time in which America’s businesses desperately need the freedom to responsibly pursue earning profits and put workers back on the payroll, the chemical potency of combining Obama’s left-wing agenda with an anti-business zealot manager at OSHA could prove toxic. The Senate should move swiftly to send Obama’s nominee back from whence he came.