Grim's Hall - perhaps the only interesting post on Alito: "Biden apparently asked if the President 'can just go ahead and violate international law ('that's the administration's position,' said Biden).'

The answer to that question, as I understand it, is that it depends on what is meant by 'international law.' If it refers to anything informal, or treaties we haven't ratified but which have been ratified by lots of other countries (e.g., the ban on cluster bombs), or the fact that lots of allied countries have similar laws 'so we should have one too,' etc., then neither the President nor Congress is the least bit bound by 'international law.'

If it means 'formal treaties which the United States has signed and ratified,' then the US is bound by them unless -- I would argue, and support any President or Congressman who acted on this understanding -- that treaty violated one of the protections of the US Constitution, such as freedom of speech. "

It's a longer, thoughtful post about rights of people and power of gov't