[TheOtherOne]

There is a vast difference between U.S. justices (1) considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and (2) allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws, Stevens said at a meeting of the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference of the Seventh Circuit.

"We should not be impeached for the former," he said. "And we are not guilty of the latter."

[TheOtherOne]

That is his defense. Of the opinions I have read, it is true, none have relied on foriegn or international law for precidence. Although it has started to creep in as dicta, etc.

[Petronski]

There is a vast difference between U.S. justices (1) considering meaningful views of scholars and judges before reaching a conclusion and (2) allowing international opinion to control the interpretation of U.S. laws

Yes, there's a vast difference. However, neither is relevant in interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Any suitably self-preserving state would have severe penalties for this crap.