Krazykat112079 wrote: As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?
As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?
Considering that you concluded this:
Krazykat112079 wrote: But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion.
But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion.
That tells me that you didn't understand, after reading the opinion, the difference between reversing a trial court on its exercise of discretion with regard to the ordinance, or invalidating the ordinance altogether.
You clearly don't understand the case or what happened in it. And yet, you were all set to blame everyone in sight -- the media and the general public -- ironically for not understanding the case and blowing it "out of proportion."
But you like the outcome, and for some people, that's all that matters.
No, that's not against the law.
Krazykat112079 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion? Holy cow, I didn't know you had to have authority to have an opinion. Where do you submit the application for authority to posess opinions?
MichaelSol wrote: Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion?
Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion?
Holy cow, I didn't know you had to have authority to have an opinion. Where do you submit the application for authority to posess opinions?
Many places.
In engineering, get a degree, pass the test, get your license. In medicine, get a degree, pass the test, get your license. In law, get a degree, pass the test, get your license. Then you are qualified to offer opinions on engineering, qualified to offer opinions on medicine and qualified to offer opinions on law. Takes some time, some energy, some commitment to get the qualifications.
But in each of those, and many other professions, you rely on "authority" as a term of art describing the academic, scientific, legal or professional sources that support an "opinion." In any profession, anyone who offers an "opinion" without being able to cite the "authority" for it would appear to his or her peers as purely a charlatan; someone who lacks the competency to offer the opinion in the first place.
Any "opinion" always carries itself better when backed up by citations to "authority", and particularly so if the "opinion" doesn't get something completely backwards factually -- as you did. But, if that were a requirement of law, that might put at least a couple of folks out of the opinion business entirely.
"Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. I got 'em because the other side's got 'em, but once you use 'em, they screw everything up." -- Danny Divito in "Other People's Money"
This whole thing could have been worked out over a cup of coffee.
A little common sense on the part of the Mudlein city government would have left the law intact. Few people, if anyone, would argue that a railroad should be able to simply park a train, at its convinience, across a road and leave it there. But that's not what happened here.
This train had problems. It had: 1) a dynamiter, 2) dragging equipment, and 3) a broken draw bar. I think the Wisconsin Central crews did a fantastic job getting it moving as fast as they did.
Mundlein could have recognized that this was an unusual, specific incident, had a talk with the railroad, and let it go. But no, they literally put the railroad's back against the wall. They tried to fine the carrier because a train broke down.
The railroad could not stand idle and let this happen, so they fought it in court, and won. The decision by the Illinois Supreme Court was unanimous. Not one justice voted the other way.
And now, because of the beyond foolish actions of the city government of Mundlein, IL, there is no law limiting the time a crossing may legally be blocked in Illinois. And there can't be a new state law concerning the matter. Nobody really objected to the time limits, as long as they weren't used when trains were disabled. But Mundlein pushed it, and now there's yet another mess in Illinois.
MichaelSol wrote: Krazykat112079 wrote: As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?Considering that you concluded this: Krazykat112079 wrote: But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion. That tells me that you didn't understand, after reading the opinion, the difference between reversing a trial court on its exercise of discretion with regard to the ordinance, or invalidating the ordinance altogether.You clearly don't understand the case or what happened in it. And yet, you were all set to blame everyone in sight -- the media and the general public -- ironically for not understanding the case and blowing it "out of proportion." But you like the outcome, and for some people, that's all that matters.No, that's not against the law.
True, I initially misunderstood the case. But your logic is faulty in concluding that I would not go back and attempt to clarify in my mind what I misunderstood. It is also faulty in that my misunderstanding arose from reading the opinion of the Supreme Court and not that of the Appellate Court, which I read after reading the Supreme Court opinion and in more detail.
Also true, I do like the outcome and that does matter to me. Here is why, though. The circumstances of the incident did not even satisfy the the ordinance of the Village, regardless if it is preempted or not. The village was, in my non-lawyer so it means absolutely jack squat to you but I still care about it opinion, abusing its power.
If the facts of the incident had shown that the train was not disabled and that the railroad had blocked the intersection without cause, my opinion would be for the Village.
Krazykat112079 wrote: True, I initially misunderstood the case. But your logic is faulty in concluding that I would not go back and attempt to clarify in my mind what I misunderstood.
True, I initially misunderstood the case. But your logic is faulty in concluding that I would not go back and attempt to clarify in my mind what I misunderstood.
My objection is to people who don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about, but sure are willing to come onto a thread and jump all over the "media and the general public" for "once again" taking everything out of context. In your case, as you acknowledge, you were ready to denounce pretty much everyone for not being as clued in as you were and who were ready to "blow everything out of proportion" before you took the time to read the opinions carefully. You had your mind made up, you didn't really care what the opinions said.
The nature of your comments takes otherwise interesting legal issues and makes them unduly contentious because that really seems to be your purpose: denounce just how stupid you think everyone is -- even as you misunderstood the case yourself; the natural just deserts of agenda-driven, rather than process-driven, analysis. This underscores your further misunderstanding of my comment regarding having an "authority" for an opinion -- a basis in fact or in research. You were indignant at even the thought of having a basis for an opinion. Just so. That may be why you use the word "jack squat" in reference to outside attitudes about your "opinions", based on your own self-described approach to developing them.
"Preemption" is a relatively complex legal issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has wrestled with it for over 200 years. However, it is not impenetrable, and when even the FRA itself suggests there is no preemption, one has to wonder why the Illinois appellate court system was so anxious to find it.
MichaelSol wrote: My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
Yes, you both tried to pick the fight ... and no, the "media and the general public" aren't always the idiots you guys try and portray, and no, your accusation that I was trying to be "smooth" ---with some implication contained therein -- was likewise your misreading of the case, even as you tried to personalize your disagreement with my summary of the case by making a derogatory reference to my personal integrity.
I continue to object to the name-calling that you both intitiated on this thread, and are now trying to perpetuate by continued personalized comments that have nothing to do with the case. And let's see, another poster referred to some people as just plain stupid, and another a crack about lawyers. Well, there are just deserts that result from that approach. Everytime there is a serious discussion, you guys show up with your mistatements of fact, general conclusions about the media, the public, Villages, the Moderators, and anyone else in your sights, or whom you disagree with and yet ... you guys always seem to get your facts wrong. Any thoughts as to why that is? And yes, I do consider it reflexive because each of you set the tone for the ensuing discussion, with no prior provocation for doing so. People that don't seem to know the subject area, but feel compelled to comment anyway, seem to always end up doing that, through sarcasm, personal innuendoes, outright insults .... and your post above does not disappoint anyone who might have expected otherwise, such as a post on the subject matter at hand.
I don't want to get involved in what appears to be becoming an increasingly heated exchange, but I have some additional information on the Illinois cases which might be useful.
The Illinois statute involved in these two cases wasn't directed at emergency services (blocked crossing statutes and ordinances typically aren't). It imposed a blanket 10 minute restriction for blocked crossings throughout the state, without regard to whether emergency responders ever used a particular crossing or needed to use a crossing. The facts of the two cases similarly didn't involve emergency services. Rather they involved situations where a train either physically couldn't move due to a malfunction, or couldn't legally move because of FRA brake inspection and testing requirements. With regard to the latter, when FRA was considering its current brake rules some years ago, FRA was told that the rule, as proposed, would result in more blocked crossings. FRA did not make changes in the rule to address this issue.
The Illinois cases actually aren't anything new. Similar decisions have been made in other jurisdictions going back to the 1990's. There is at least one decision (I believe it's Friberg vs KCS in the Federal 5th circuit court of appeals) in which the court shot down a blocked crossing restriction but suggested that the outcome would have been different had the court been dealing a statute that was limited to requiring a railroad to clear a crossing for emergency services.
As noted by one of the other posters, ralroads typically have internal rules requiring stopped trains to cut crossings if they can't be cleared after a stated period of time. But, as shown by the facts in the Illnois cases, there are situations where this can't be done within the limits of state or local restrictions. For example, under the Illinois law, it would be pretty difficult to cut a train within 10 minutes of the train being stopped (particularly if a crewmember had to walk back very far from the loco to make the cut), and impossible to meet the 10 minute restriction if the train required more than a simple set and release (continuity) brake test when put back together.
Falcon48 wrote: The Illinois statute involved in these two cases wasn't directed at emergency services (blocked crossing statutes and ordinances typically aren't).
Two cases? We have discussed the Mundlein case. What is the other Illinois case? Are you referring to Eagle Marine Industries, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2008) 363 Ill. App. 3d 1166?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.