"The only way that international law can become relevant to a case in federal courts, is if it's incorporated into a treaty that's been ratified. The reason for that is the Constitution specifies that a treaty, once ratified by the Senate, becomes part of the laws of the United States. It then becomes relevant not because it is an international law, but because Senate ratification has made it part of US law."
The real argument is that the Senate cannot pass treaty-based laws, or any other law, if they are repugnant to the Constitutution and the BOR. (Article VI, para 2.)
Repugnant means contradictory or irreconcilable. Any law or argument which cannot pass that safeguard should be trashcanned and ignored, particularly in regard to those laws which infringe, alter, modify, abrogate, or in the least way attempt to qualify the BOR, which includes the Ninth and Tenth amemdments as well as all other personal and unalienable rights, written and unwritten.
The only logical interpretation of Article VI which should fiercely protect our personal and state sovereignty from federal and international intrusions. But has it worked?
Article VI also prohibits the state from abridging or qualifying Citizen's rights, as the safeguard is supreme over a state which may attempt infringements by its legislature or by amendment to its constitution.
If Congress cannot pass a particular law to begin with because its repugnant, then there would be no reason for the judiciary to become involved. No cases to prosecute, no reviews or appeals necessary. Problem solved.
Am I correct? Probably not, because that's not the way things are. :^<