Did the SCOTUS Just Rule Treaties Aren't The Law?

(Original title: If I can get you cork-soakers to quit...)

...reccing every "Obama walks on water" and "I hate Hillary" post for a few minutes to read this lowly non-candidate diary, maybe someone can help me make some sense of this.

The SCOTUS has ruled that "Treaties No Longer Supreme Law of the Land"

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt President Bush a defeat today and ruled that he does not have the "unilateral authority" to force state officials to comply with international treaties.

Or at least, that seems to be the case. But then I looked into it a little further...

I wondered if this treaty had ever been ratified, so I googled it.

From Mar 10, 2005:

You had to know something was up when President Bush agreed to give the 51 Mexican death row inmates in the U.S. new hearings, as ordered by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Now, his purpose becomes a little clearer. Wednesday, the U.S. officially withdrew from the Vienna Convention protocol it proposed and ratified in 1963.

What?

So, it seems, a ratified treaty can be unilaterally voided by the President?

March 10, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration has decided to pull out of an international agreement that opponents of the death penalty have used to fight the sentences of foreigners on death row in the United States, officials said yesterday.

In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969.

And, once voided (according to the 11th amendment) "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Unless, of course, congress passes a NEW law, enforcing the treaty?

Which the President can then issue a signing statement and ignore?

But use to enforce the treaty when he wants to?

Am I reading this right?

(PS - A "cork-soaker" is someone who, according to a SNL skit, is employed soaking corks to prepare them for insertion in wine bottles.)