[Dumb_Ox]

I think (IIRC) this is why Bork was crucified--he had proposed to migrate from positivism to natural law emphasis--which would have been an atomic bomb in the Progressive Party's lap.

As I recall, Bork got in trouble for *denying* natural rights and natural law reasoning. Sure you're not thinking of Thomas?

Plenty of contemporary Catholic natural law theorists are opposed to natural law/natural rights reasoning in the judicial branch of the government, thinking it best left to the legislature. I believe Bork would still side with them even after his conversion.

[ninenot]

As I recall, Bork got in trouble for *denying* natural rights and natural law reasoning.

Looks like I missed the call on Bork.

But if natural law reasoning belongs to the Legislature, should not the courts adopt similar reasoning in determining Constitutionality of legislation?