I'd love to know how there can be a 5-3 majority that says "We can't use the decisions of foreign courts" when it applies to gun laws and their effect on convicted criminals, but within the same court, another majority that seems to be hell-bent on using foreign laws and court decisions to justify some of their opinions, like the Texas sodomy case.
There's a big difference between using foreign court decisions as a reference tool for areas in which both the law and society are changing and thus presenting new questions, and giving foreign courts' decisions the automatic weight of law.