Still did not address the actual power behind it, i.e. it having as much authority (none) as a similar ruling from a British judiciary in 1776.
Not to mention the fact that placing all power with the SCOTUS has given us a country no longer bound by the Constitution, but by the whim of five SCOTUS members, many of whom have admitted that they view the times (or foreign law) as a guide to their decisions, rather than the original intent of said document. You look to the law as a guide when we are now a nation of MEN, men who advocate the reduction of true liberty at every turn.
From Wikipedia:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.
From Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton):
. . . It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .
I am not going to get into the debate about use of foreign law in Supreme Court decisions (there are whole books on the subject), but suffice it to say the Supreme Court has looked at foreign law for guidance (but not controlling interpretation) throughout US history.