Michael McGough argues that Antonin Scalia may be morphing into Clarence Thomas, moving from a "hard positivist" position into one friendlier to natural law. This reverses the direction the influence is usually said to run. On the basis of his argument, Im not sure that McGough has the natural law argument quite right. After all, natural law isnt supposed to depend upon revelation, but rather upon the reason that God gave everyone. Or am I missing something?