When members of the U.S. Senate returned for the second half of Tuesday’s impeachment proceedings, they were probably not expecting a breakdown of the mechanics of a record player, an ode to the late Sen. Everett Dirksen’s (R-IL) voice and an elegy on what makes senators special.
I’m not a lawyer, but I thought Castor wandered off the beaten path of recognizing in American law, at times, English Common Law when he declared… “I can’t believe these fellas are quoting what happened pre-Revolution, as though that’s somehow of value to us. We left the British system!” he bellowed. “If we’re really going to use pre-Revolutionary history in Great Britain, then the precedent is we have a parliament and we have a king. Is that the precedent that we are headed for?”
Am I wrong to think references to English Common Law in American jurisprudence are not uncommon?
Castor was embarrassing. Even if it was necessary to address something the House Managers brought up that the “defense” hadn’t anticipated, the kick off of his speech should have been coherent and concise and well delivered. His opening was NONE of these, starting off with a lengthy buttering up of the Senate itself.
I’m convinced he was actually up there just to stall for time so that Schoen could finish writing “new” arguments. While I don’t agree with much of what Schoen is saying, at least he is performing well. He surely is “righteously incensed” by these proceedings…or at least he is well practiced.
I think we finally found the one guy that couldn’t get O.J. off. I love the line about him changing the response because the prosecution did such a good job. This is Marx Brother’s stuff. Can’t make it up.
Well since our Founding Fathers were British up until a certain document was signed, then yes English Common Law and American Law have things in common.
It’s funny that Castor is dissing having a King when King Donald the Ducker claims he is untouchable, sort of like he has the divine right to rule without any of those pesky checks and balances.