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.
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?