One can argue both for and against it.

On the one hand, one can argue the principle. On the other, one can argue the application. The Supreme Court tends to take the safe (legally speaking) road of narrowly tailoring rulings for application and only rarely ruling on principle.

One of the main things the Supreme Court does is establish the "test" for whether or not a specific ruling can apply, recognizing that changing times and situations necessitate this. They attempt to set up the principles by which something should apply within a legal context which is usually fraught with conflicting rulings, precedent, and laws. It's a complicated mess that spawns from the lawmakers themselves crafting laws which are NOT based on principles.

Then you have the other part, which is where several of the individual members of the courts bring their own judicial philosophies to mix in with their legal rulings - philosophies that sometimes have little to do with upholding precedent and instead attempt to overturn social norms, apply extra-national legal precedent, and more. In my opinion, Justices that attempt to use foreign laws to justify their rulings should be impeached - as should those who attempt to "legislate from the bench", but I don't believe in the history of the United States has there ever been a Justice of the Supreme Court who has ever been impeached - let alone convicted. If I were Judge Narragansett, I would put that in under the terms of seating of the Justices as an automatic offense for a seated Justice as well as any other Federal Judge.