A russian court has ruled that an astrologer can sue NASA over plans to bombard a comet whose destruction would "disrupt the natural balance of the universe".The grounds are almost as goofy as the opinion itself. The lower court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over NASA, but the appellate court ruled that the presence of a US embassy gave Russian courts jurisdiction. One doesn't have to a be a lawyer to see the flaw in that - the embassy is specifically exempted from Russian law, under international law it is US territory. But then, if a court can't just throw out a suit for being utterly ridiculous, why should we expect the court's ruling to make sense?
Hat tip to The Club for Growth
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment