The Clarence Thomas hearings, Part I (pre-Anita Hill)

It is odd, even unsettling, that the Kavanaugh hearings are following so closely the script of the Clarence Thomas hearings of 1991. A contentious first session focused on controversial views and official actions, followed by a dramatic accusation of sexual misconduct and an explosive reprise. Because of Anita Hill's experience, Christine Blasey Ford knows full well what is in store for her, and it's a horror show--the best token of her credibility, not to mention the depth of her concern.

But in the firestorm of controversy and high drama of the second phase of the Thomas hearings, the central conflict of the first phase has been almost completely forgotten. It was the judge's philosophy of "natural law" that caused an uproar, earning him a denunciation on the editorial page of the New York Times, the ire of Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Tribe, and expressions of outrage from numerous Democratic senators.

This was a bizarre position for liberals to take, as Joe Biden, then Senate Judiciary Committee chair, understood. Lockean natural law gives us resistance to tyranny, unalienable rights, and all the freedoms that we cherish. Tossing out natural law and asserting that the only law is what the State enacts leads straight to Hobbes' Leviathan. It is emblematic of late-stage Democratic control of Congress (they lost it three years later) that they imagined they would always be making the laws.