No, because now we have a series of events that have occured during the Bush 43 presidency that set up a firewall against further interference by the "world court."
1. In 2002, President Bush revoked Bill Clinton's signature on the treaty that created the "world court."
2. The congress has never ratified that treaty.
3. Today's Supreme Court decision establishes as U.S. law that no international court can interfere with the laws and judiciary of our 50 states.
It's true that a future president and congress might try to revive the "world court" treaty and ratify it, but we now have a powerful legal basis to stand on when we fight such a move.
I was thinking in terms of the change in the power from the current balance to a liberal congress and president...then any new treaty could be renewed...but could it also be a decision limited to that one treaty? or could it only be limited to state law matters and not federal crimes, etc.?
I guess I need to read the opinion and facts to see what the scope of the decision really was.
In the current political climate, one cannot even trust the docrine of stare decisis...since the rules seem to be based on the emotion of the moment and the english language can be interpreted to mean anything that the current politics dictates.
No, you are reading the case too broadly. Look at it again. They talk about different kinds of treaties. The result may be quite different in cases where the treaty is self-executing.