I saw part of this telecast and Breyer made a distinction as to when he looked to non-US decisions and why. His case he made was better then I anticipated.
He said, first, each justice should turn away from their individual opinion, prejudice or preference and get outside-of-self, or words to that effect.
He then said that where US case law is silent and doesn't have decisions to go back to for observation, other nations judicial records may show how others have decided similar issues so that the justice researching same can seperate himself from their own opinions. Once observed, then it is only fair for those reading there opinions to be shown the path of thinking and reseach they have taken so that it is clear that the justice has made his reasoning and reflection obvious.
Scalia even gave some credence to this line of reasoning when it was fully restricted to such a narrow area. His complaint was when our law was obviously well founded it should not be circumvented without a clear cause within our own law.
I saw the telecast, too. I thought it was very good. I sometimes wish they would do this more often, but the priestly tribe image prohibits that. And, the two men basically did agree.
I think you summed up Breyer's position pretty well.