> Does this mean that any time you want to sidestep an actual examination of the merits of an argument in the Supreme Court you just need to ensure there's an international treaty in your favour?
You're mis-interpreting things: as michael_dorfman notes, according to the constitution of the united states of america any international treaty signed by the United States's administration is the binding law of the land.
> How does the US become party to a treaty, in any case? I'm guessing it has something to do with Congress.
The executive (the president) ratifies it and the Senate contents to it (with a two-thirds vote)
You're mis-interpreting things: as michael_dorfman notes, according to the constitution of the united states of america any international treaty signed by the United States's administration is the binding law of the land.
> How does the US become party to a treaty, in any case? I'm guessing it has something to do with Congress.
The executive (the president) ratifies it and the Senate contents to it (with a two-thirds vote)